July 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Worlcom Fiber Cut (Re: Sprint Outages)
by Mark E Larson 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

MFS Worldcom Fiber Cut WorldCom has experienced a fiber cut between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD which is causing outages across multiple U.S. Backbones, in the Northeast United States. The fiber cut effected approx 533 DS-3's. According to Worldcom, it will take six hours to restore all the circuits. (happened approx 10:30am) Mark E Larson Senior Network Architect RUSTnet Engineering ----------------------------------------------- R U S T N E T I N C. A member of the Verio Group http://www.rust.net -----------------------------------------------

1 0

Worlcom Fiber Cut (Re: Sprint Outages)
by Mark E Larson 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

MFS Worldcom Fiber Cut WorldCom has experienced a fiber cut between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD which is causing outages across multiple U.S. Backbones, in the Northeast United States. The fiber cut effected approx 533 DS-3's. According to Worldcom, it will take six hours to restore all the circuits. (happened approx 10:30am) Mark E Larson Senior Network Architect RUSTnet Engineering ----------------------------------------------- R U S T N E T I N C. A member of the Verio Group http://www.rust.net -----------------------------------------------

1 0

Washington DC outage (fwd)
by Eric Wieling 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

Just got this from Sprint. > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 08:56:40 -0400 (EDT) > From: Outage Poster <postout(a)sprint.net> > Subject: Washington DC outage > > 7/17/97 09:10 EDT > > We currently have 280 DS-3's down in our Washington DC relay site due to > a fiber cut. Customers connect to our DC routers will experience routing > instabilities and delays. We are working to resolve this problem...no ETR > is available at this time. We will send a follow-up message to update > this problem. We apologize for any inconvenience that this may have > caused. Thank you for your patience.

2 1

Re: NSI bulletin 097-004 | Root Server Problems
by Carl Oppedahl 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

At 11:14 AM 07/17/97 PDT, Randy Bush wrote: >> Despite alarms raised by Network Solutions' quality assurance schemes, at >> approximately 2:30 a.m. (Eastern Time), a system administrator released >> the zone file without regenerating the file and verifying its integrity. > >You allow mere humans to affect the process on which the whole net relies? >Oh my gawd! I demand my money back! :-) > >But seriously. Thanks for the explanation, David. These things happen, >though rarely, one hopes. We all kinda wonder, but don't want to add to >the problem by calling, whining, ... > >Shall we have a gaffe of the week contest, this week's major entries being >this one and probably MAE-West/MFS? We could call it the Metcalf award. >But, David, please don't emulate the competiton by doing it twice. :-) Well, what would make it tough is if there were a gaffe of the month contest, because that would be NSI competing with itself. Recall that problem of a couple of weeks ago where NSI fiddled with its FTP access permissions and made it impossible for the root servers to obtain the root file ... a mistake that, like this one, was detected first by persons outside of NSI, and only hours later did NSI make any public acknowledgement of the mistake.

1 0

RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Todd Wilkens 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

All the fiber that was Wiltel went with the sale to LDDS. There was a portion of Wiltel that was not sold to LDDS and that was Vyvx. Williams retained the Wiltel name and I believe Vyvx is now called Wiltel and is still part of the Williams Companies out of Tulsa. I believe part of the sale agreement was that Williams retained one fiber strand out of every fiber run Wiltel (the original one) had. So Williams (Wiltel) still has alot of fiber capacity. >---------- >From: Peter Leppik[SMTP:pleppik@mail.wessels.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 17, 1997 10:05 AM >To: 'johnl(a)iecc.com' >Cc: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' >Subject: RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom > >I was relying on an article which crossed my desk a few weeks ago, and >now I can't find it again. My apologies if my memory failed me; it >wouldn't be the first time. > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: johnl(a)iecc.com [SMTP:johnl@iecc.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 8:43 PM >>To: Peter Leppik >>Subject: Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom >> >>>carriers. Qwest also bought a boatload of fiber from Williams Pipeline >>>Co. some time ago, and signed a contract with Williams which locked >>>Williams out of the business of deploying new fiber until early 1998 >>>(Williams runs fiber through unused oil and gas pipelines, having >>>discovered that fiber optics is more of a growth industry than >>>schlepping around fermented dinosaurs). >> >>That is most bizarre. Williams has been in the fiber business for >>ages, their fiber subsidiary was Wiltel which was the 4th or 5th >>largest IXC by volume (mostly resold to other carriers) when it was >>sold and merged into LDDS/Worldcom in early 1995. Are you saying that >>after they spun off Wiltel, Williams went back into the fiber >>stringing business? >> >>-- >>John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 >>johnl(a)iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, >>http://iecc.com/johnl, >>Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 >A3 >>47 >

1 0

Re: DNS ideas
by Alex Rubenstein 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

Why? At 11:42 AM 7/17/97 -0400, Marc Hurst wrote: > >Sounds like eDNS... and that model does work IMHO. > >On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > >> >> With all this craziness in DNS land lately (the internic going nutz, the >> root domains wigging this morning, etc.), I had come up with on the >> craziest thoguhts I think I ever thunk (!!). Anyway, what about a >> structure like this: >> >> >> 1) Root domain name server operators (RDNSO) -- a selected 10 or 15 people --- "Don't go with a spineless ISP; we have more backbone." Alex Rubenstein -- alex(a)nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725

4 3

Re: mae-la
by Jay R. Ashworth 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

On Wed, Jul 16, 1997 at 08:42:53PM -0700, Bill Manning wrote: > > A bit pointed, perhaps, but even from an engineering standpoint, that's > > not a sentiment I'd expect from anyone who wasn't a WorldCom employee. > > Certainly, it would make more sense _to UUNET_ to have people who want > > to peer become their clients, instead; but that's not the _point_ of > > peering, is it? > > Why? Because perhaps I see WorldCom dumping cash into its UUnet arm and > terminating all but one of its MAE support staff? No, but if that's true, it's even more reason not to give UUnet any money one doesn't have to. > Or perhaps because I and Lance are keeping WorldCom "honest" by providing > alternatives for MAE-WEST and MAE-LA clients? Or do you have another reason > why WorldCom is not more active in building up its MAE business? I don't know, nor care, why they aren't, but peering with them is a different business case than becoming their customer, by a long shot, and it ought to remain different. > I really don't care what WorldCom does with its MAE or UUnet business. I'm > more interested in ensuring a cost effective means for ISPs local to LA have > a neutral place to swap bits. If folks can make bucks using this service, > great. Just as long as they don't impede the R&E work that goes on. _That's_ the attitude I want to see. It's "just a business" for WOrldCom nowadays, as far as I can see. They trashed WilTel, which was an engineering-drive company with a great technical reputation, and they appear to be doing the same to UUnet. > I'd like to continue to trade inuendo, but I have more interesting things > to do. Perhaps if you end up in LA, you might have an opportunity to > make a choice about LAP/MAE-LA. And we might have to consider if we want > your custom. But until then, for you, its a moot point. Wasn't innuendo for innuendo's sake; your comment simply didn't appear to have any reasonable motivation. Your assertion appeared to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, "why would backbone operators want to have the MAE to peer with UUNET (and others) at, when they could simply become UUNET customers, and let UUNET deal [poorly --jra] with the problems?" If that's not an accurate perception of your intentions, perhaps you could clarify. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592

1 0

Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Ron Buchalski 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

>From: Scott Landman <Scott_Landman(a)zd.com> > >If fibers being cut is the culprit here, does going with a supplier like >Qwest make sense because their fibers are running down railroad right of >ways and, therefore, should be less succeptible to a backhoe digging where >it shouldn't be? Or are you looking at other, more secure mediums for the >bulk of your traffic? > The key is to go with multiple suppliers who can guarantee diverse routes. Carriers lease capacity from each other in some cases, so Sprint and MCI can give you circuits in the same physical fiber. Sprint and AT&T are implementing SONET protection switching which will reroute circuits around fiber cuts in 50ms. I don't know if they do it as a rule, or if you need to specify rerouting priority (and pay for it). It's interesting to look at a carrier's fiber map and compare it to a railroad map. You'll see MANY similarities. Railroad rights of way are the easiest areas to install fiber. -rb ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

3 2

Re: MAE-MIR
by Scott Landman 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

Maybe a back hoe ran over one of the power lines. Or was it a train derailment? The good news is they only had to hold their breaths for 3.5 hours... Ok, Ok, you guys take this too seriously. Somebody pulled the power cord on the Mir spacestation this morning... For a pointer, go to CNN... Eric At 07:30 AM 7/17/97 -0700, bmanning(a)ISI.EDU wrote: >> >> Did MFS acquire Mir this morning? >> >> E >> > >Don't think so... Last I knew, MFS was not in any position to acquire >anything... WorldCom. Now thats a different story. > >But perhaps you would be willing to provide a pointer? > >-- >--bill > > =========================================================================== = ==== Eric Germann Computer and Communications Technologies ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 Phone: 419 968 2640 http://www.cctec.com Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider

1 0

Re: MAE-MIR
by Eric Germann 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

Ok, Ok, you guys take this too seriously. Somebody pulled the power cord on the Mir spacestation this morning... For a pointer, go to CNN... Eric At 07:30 AM 7/17/97 -0700, bmanning(a)ISI.EDU wrote: >> >> Did MFS acquire Mir this morning? >> >> E >> > >Don't think so... Last I knew, MFS was not in any position to acquire >anything... WorldCom. Now thats a different story. > >But perhaps you would be willing to provide a pointer? > >-- >--bill > > ============================================================================ ==== Eric Germann Computer and Communications Technologies ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 Phone: 419 968 2640 http://www.cctec.com Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider

1 0