July 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

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

17 Jul '97

When Worldcom does change the DLR, you get an automated fax notification that states they are performing "maintenance" or a "groom" on your ckt. This means there is a high probablity they are changing the design of your ckt and your diversity may not exist after the groom. You should probably respond to the fax and find out exactly what they are doing. You can also have your sales rep mark you order in the Wcom database as "diversely routed". You also need to specify the ckt you want to be diversely routed from. This should stop you ckt from being added to any groom packages that are being put together. If your ckt is not marked diverse, grooms can occur frequently. >---------- >From: randy@psg.com[SMTP:randy@psg.com] >Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 5:13 PM >To: Nathan Stratton >Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom > >> Worldcom changed the DLRs without letting us know > >happens all the time. they do that like we move customers between router >ports. > >if you want to maintain path diversity, you have to continually monitor it >with your carriers. and then you'll need to go out and physically every >once in a while. yes, this is major major pain. > >randy >

1 0

Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Sean M. Doran 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

| Sprint uses 4 ring sonet loops. Two backup and two active. This way | there is total capacity availiable in the event of a fiber cut. The data | just takes the reverse way around the loop on the backup path. I believe | they should have all the loops completed by the end of the year. Most fibre point-to-point links use two fiber strands, and typically one is set up as a transmitter and the other as a receiver. That is, two unidirectional fibre strands form a pair. (With WDM, one ends up with multiple wavelengths on the same fibre -- which is roughly akin to cleaving the fibre into two fibres -- and one can either have multiple transmitters or mixed transmitters and receivers on any single strand. A single strand, therefore, can look like a fibre pair, if you wanted, or a pair of strands could carry multiple "virtual fibre strands" each containing light at different frequencies) A fully protected SDH or SONET ring is made up of two or more pairs of fibre along different physical paths. Each SDH or SONET multiplexer has sufficient buffering to make up for any propagation delay difference (sometimes many milliseconds thanks to the slowness of light in glass, and also thanks to repeater jitter). A copy of the data recently arrived on the shorter physical path is retained in memory and compared against the copy which arrives later along the longer path. Any discrepancies are flagged as errors, and set off alarm bells. Missing data is considered a line failure, and if data is missing off the primary path, the data arriving from the secondary path is forwarded instead. SDH and SONET therefore are theoretically immune to any single equipment failure outside of the MUXes themselves. The time to recover from any fibre cut or optics failure is roughly the difference in the observed propagation delay plus a fudge factor which takes thermal and other effects into account. With the ongoing deployment of WDM in carriers' networks, there will be moves either to parallelize SONET and SDH using the traditional four strands, to do clever aggregation (present a concatenated unidirectional fibre to a MUX at the cost of some further propagation delay and antijitter techniques), or to deploy 2-stranded SDH/SONET rings. There will also be pushes to use multiplexing technologies other than SDH or SONET. Which is the best approach depends significantly on point-of-view. Personally I like the idea of ever-faster bit- (or byte-) pipes in an effort to keep the number of interfaces in switching equipment down. Others strongly disagree and would make the opposite trade-off. YMMV. Sean.

1 0

root nameservers broken again?
by Taner Halicioglu 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

bleh... is it me, or are the root nameservers hosed again? e.g.... ;; QUESTIONS: ;; 1.1.251.206.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: IN-ADDR.ARPA. 86400 SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET. ( 1997071600 ; serial 10800 ; refresh (3 hours) 900 ; retry (15 mins) 604800 ; expire (7 days) 86400 ) ; minimum (1 day) ;; Total query time: 90 msec ;; FROM: coredump to SERVER: a.root-servers.net 198.41.0.4 looks like this for [a-d].root.servers.net... e,f,g look ok (as far as I can tell)... -Taner -- D. Taner Halicioglu taner(a)isi.net Programmer/Engineer/Sysadmin ISI / GlobalCenter Voice: +1 408 543 0313 Fax: +1 408 541 9878 PGP Fingerprint: 65 0D 03 A8 26 21 6D B8 23 3A D6 67 23 6E C0 36

4 3

BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Matthew Pearson 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

At 11:59am today WorldCom lost 6 major ATM trunks from St. Louis to L.A. So as you can imagine... MANY MANY ISPs are in some state of down. Just letting you know. No time estimate to repair has been made.

7 11

RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Chris Fairbanks 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

Doesn't Sprint stand for Southern Pacific Railroad INTernational? Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Nikos Mouat [SMTP:nikm@ixa.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 4:19 PM > To: Scott Landman > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom > > > If you're suggesting that Qwest is the only carrier using railroad > right > of ways I suggest you take a closer look at those little orange posts > running along the side of train tracks.. I've seen MCI, Worldcom, > AT&T, > sprint and others running along the same tracks from Seattle to > Portland. > > nm > > On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Scott Landman wrote: > > > 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?

4 3

RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by pat＠tandem.com 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

> I believe new statistics for 1996 have just been released, but I don't > have those numbers handy at the moment. Try www.fcc.gov, and look for a > report called "Fiber Deployment Update" or somesuch. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/infra.html -pat -- Patrick Mulrooney Tandem Computers

1 0

RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Peter Leppik 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

At the end of 1995, according the the FCC, the major interexchange carriers had the following amounts of fiber deployed: Carrier Route Miles Fiber Miles AT&T 46,083 1,417,600 MCI 23,160 567,400 Sprint 22,996 467,200 WorldCom 11,127 266,200 Other 4,223 58,900 I believe new statistics for 1996 have just been released, but I don't have those numbers handy at the moment. Try www.fcc.gov, and look for a report called "Fiber Deployment Update" or somesuch. Qwest is a relative newcomer (just went public) which has been building out their own fiber network with the intent of reselling it to other 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). Regards, -Peter >-----Original Message----- >From: Charles Sprickman [SMTP:spork@inch.com] >Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:19 PM >To: Scott Landman >Cc: nathan(a)netrail.net; bnite(a)tremere.ios.com; mpearson(a)games-online.com; >nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom > >On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Scott Landman wrote: > >> 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 > >I was under the impression that there was one fiber giant that actually >owns its own fiber, and that its name is AT&T... Who is Qwest??? > >Anyone have any stats on how much MCI, Sprint, WCom actually own? > >Charles > >~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ >Charles Sprickman Internet Channel >INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 >spork(a)inch.com access(a)inch.com > > > >

1 0

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Results
by jrg＠blodwen.demon.co.uk 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

c-huegen(a)quadrunner.com (Craig A. Huegen) writes: > It's a rough measurement, and if you'd go so far as to assign a 20% error > margin, you'd stillsee that a web server still owns a *significant* piece > of the click-to-data time, over 50%. Especially if it's using the particularly sub-optimal (aka 'broken') network stack that a very popular server operating system has. In fact, some recent measurements of mine show a large variance even for a connection setup on a local network depending upon what IP stacks are involved: varying between 0.39s and 0.007s. (Unsurprisingly the broken stack referred to above works quite well with itself, and not too bad with an earlier OS from the same company - if I didn't know better I might believe that they only tested with their own systems.) (this isn't really operational so if you want names let me know privately. Perhaps someone out there has some clout.) James.

1 0

RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Steve Martin 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

Thank you. BIFF is was! -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Stratton [SMTP:nathan@netrail.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 10:56 AM To: Scott Landman Cc: bnite(a)tremere.ios.com; mpearson(a)games-online.com; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom Fiber cut, it is back up now. Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. Fax (404)522-1939 230 Peachtree Suite 500 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Atlanta, GA 30303 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. - Psalm 33:16 On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Scott Landman wrote: > > > > > Does anyone have any idea what percentage of their total capacity was lost? > Also, is this the result of equipment failure or cut fiber? > > >

1 0

Re: Mae-West
by Sean M. Doran 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

Not that I would suggest using them over the whole nanog list, but, um, do the mae-west-techs(a)uu.net (or was it mae-west@ and cix-techs@... i forget) list and its siblings still work? Sean.

2 1