July 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Internet Backbone Index
by Robert E. Seastrom 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

From: Gary Zimmerman <garyz(a)savvis.com> You talk about engineering good networks, why then use something that is unmanaged and uses poor technology and poor engineer designs in a MAE or NAP? Where is most of the packet lost on the internet? MAEs and NAPs. I'll bet you're in favor of outlawing hospitals on the basis that tens of thousands of people die there each year. ---Rob

1 0

RE: ATM vs. DS3
by Chris A. Icide 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

We monitor both the octet output of the cisco, and the received cells on our ATM switch. One then would divide the cisco octet value by the cell value * 53. This would result in a percentage value that would indicate your "efficiency". Efficiency (%) = octet rate / (cell rate * 53) This assumes that you can measure both parameters. Chris A. Icide Sr. Engineer Nap.Net, L.L.C. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Balbach [SMTP:stephen@clark.net] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 1997 3:07 PM To: Ben Black Cc: Karl Denninger; Chris A. Icide; 'Josh Beck'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: ATM vs. DS3 Question: On a Cisco with an AIP card, how do you determain what the overhead is? We connect to our upstream provider via ATM. .stb On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Ben Black wrote: > i've never heard anything *less* than 20% loss in ATM overhead. > > On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 09, 1996 at 10:38:57PM -0500, Chris A. Icide wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 9:34 PM, Josh Beck [SMTP:jbeck@connectnet.com] > > > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I just thought of something. We are in the process of purchasing a > > > > 4 Mb CIR from another backbone. Now, we have the choice of ATM or standard > > > > T3 delivery (over a DS3 either way). Now, if we get ATM, that 4 Mb CIR > > > > turns into: > > > > > > > > [ (53-5)/53 ] * 4 Mb/s = 48/53 * 4 Mb/s = 3.62 Mb/s > > > > > > Emperical data shows that we are currently losing about 20.5% of capacity > > > to IP over ATM overhead on fairly aggregated traffic. This means that *IF* > > > your new connection is being measured as 4Mbps of cell bandwisth, you > > > will only be getting 3.18Mbps. You may want to verify from the company > > > providing this link what exactly are they limiting you to? > > > > > > btw, the extra overhead is lost in things like the last cell of a packet not > > > being full, etc. > > > > > > Chris A. Icide > > > Sr. Engineer > > > Nap.Net, L.L.C. > > > > My God, someone admits it? > > > > I've used 20% as the general ATM overhead now for almost two years, and have > > been poo-pooed by lots of people claiming that it wasn't anywhere near that > > bad. > > > > Funny how it all comes out in the end. :-) > > > > -- > > -- > > Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity > > http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service > > | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ > > Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! > > Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > > >

3 2

RE: ATM vs. DS3
by Chris A. Icide 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

I've heard (but have not verified) that Cisco has included this capability via SNMP in at least one implementation of their IOS code. Perhaps someone may know if this in fact is true, and what version(s) of IOS may contain this feature. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Balbach [SMTP:stephen@clark.net] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 1997 3:36 PM To: Chris A. Icide Cc: Ben Black; Karl Denninger; Chris A. Icide; 'Josh Beck'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: ATM vs. DS3 We go direct Cisco <-> Cisco DS3, no switch. Any variables to measure on the Cisco, assuming you only have access to 1 side? On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Chris A. Icide wrote: > We monitor both the octet output of the cisco, and the received cells > on our ATM switch. One then would divide the cisco octet value by the > cell value * 53. This would result in a percentage value that would > indicate your "efficiency". > > Efficiency (%) = octet rate / (cell rate * 53) > > This assumes that you can measure both parameters. > > Chris A. Icide > Sr. Engineer > Nap.Net, L.L.C. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Balbach [SMTP:stephen@clark.net] > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 1997 3:07 PM > To: Ben Black > Cc: Karl Denninger; Chris A. Icide; 'Josh Beck'; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: ATM vs. DS3 > > > Question: On a Cisco with an AIP card, how do you determain what the > overhead is? We connect to our upstream provider via ATM. > > .stb > > On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Ben Black wrote: > > > i've never heard anything *less* than 20% loss in ATM overhead. > > > > On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 09, 1996 at 10:38:57PM -0500, Chris A. Icide wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 09, 1997 9:34 PM, Josh Beck [SMTP:jbeck@connectnet.com] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > I just thought of something. We are in the process of purchasing a > > > > > 4 Mb CIR from another backbone. Now, we have the choice of ATM or standard > > > > > T3 delivery (over a DS3 either way). Now, if we get ATM, that 4 Mb CIR > > > > > turns into: > > > > > > > > > > [ (53-5)/53 ] * 4 Mb/s = 48/53 * 4 Mb/s = 3.62 Mb/s > > > > > > > > Emperical data shows that we are currently losing about 20.5% of capacity > > > > to IP over ATM overhead on fairly aggregated traffic. This means that *IF* > > > > your new connection is being measured as 4Mbps of cell bandwisth, you > > > > will only be getting 3.18Mbps. You may want to verify from the company > > > > providing this link what exactly are they limiting you to? > > > > > > > > btw, the extra overhead is lost in things like the last cell of a packet not > > > > being full, etc. > > > > > > > > Chris A. Icide > > > > Sr. Engineer > > > > Nap.Net, L.L.C. > > > > > > My God, someone admits it? > > > > > > I've used 20% as the general ATM overhead now for almost two years, and have > > > been poo-pooed by lots of people claiming that it wasn't anywhere near that > > > bad. > > > > > > Funny how it all comes out in the end. :-) > > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > Karl Denninger (karl(a)MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity > > > http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service > > > | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ > > > Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! > > > Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal > > > > > >

1 0

Re[2]: UUNet 10Plus
by Rocky Rosas 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

Joe, There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding how our product works and what it's capabilities are. I would be happy to share insight into how MFS uses our equipment and share with you information on performance and ATM traffic shaping capabilities. Obviously, I'm also interested in how you tested and measured the throughput numbers you received. The numbers you are reporting don't add up. I'd like to help you get to the bottom of the issue. Thanks, Rocky Rosas Director, Technical Services NetEdge Systems, Inc. rosas(a)netedge.com Support: 800 NET-ATM1 support(a)netedge.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: UUNet 10Plus Author: Joe Shaw <jshaw(a)insync.net> at internet_mail Date: 7/10/97 11:46 AM On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Peter Kline wrote: > Men, > > CPE -- 10baseT/FDDI ---|netedge|--- DS3 ---|netedge|--- 10baseT/FDDI -- switch > > In otherwords, the NetEdges act as bridges, which have to be used in a pair > in order to turn the ethernet or FDDI connection into ATM over the DS3 and > back. The NetEdges are programmable, and I'm sure that bandwidth is one of > the things that's configurable. That's the connection we have alright, but MFS/UUNet says they cannot limit the amount of bandwidth on it, and that if they gave us a 100Mbps handoff off the NetEdge box, then we'd get 100Mbps off it and there was nothing they could do. My response was why not provision the ATM bridge to 10-13Mbps, and use that to limit the data throughput? Seems that would work, but they said no go. Frustrating. > > We used to run these things fairly full and fairly hard for extensive > periods of time. I think we were able to get about 30Mpbs full duplex out > of them. I doubt that dropping packets at ~6Mpbs is the NetEdges' fault > (unless you had really old ones). Yes, it was an old one, and after months of complaining they finally delivered a new one yesterday morning. It is working MUCH better, but as soon as the link approaches 6Mbps or more, it starts choking hard. > The fundamental problem at the upper bound is that you're taking IP, > encapsulating it in ethernet or FDDI, then segmenting and further > encapsulating that (IP inside ethernet/FDDI) inside ATM. The double > encapsulation extracts even more of a tax than the !53 bunch usually > complain about. > > If you're interested in a second opinion, you might try contacting NetEdge > directly. Indeed. That's what I plan on doing today... Thanks for the input. > good luck, > -peter > Joe Shaw - jshaw(a)insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee

2 1

Re: ATM vs. DS3
by Avitosh Pal 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

In message "ATM vs. DS3", you write: > > From: Josh Beck <jbeck(a)connectnet.com> > > Now, the question is, what is the overhead of the serial (ppp?) protocol > > running over the T3? Since it is point to point, and not addressed, it > > should be less, or is this not the case? > > > The framing overhead for PPP over DS3 is about 7 bytes per packet. You > can make it as few as 4 (PPP header compression) or as long as 10 > (32-bit checksum). > > I don't know anyone shipping PPP data compression yet at those speeds, > although I've heard of a project using multiple Stac LZS chips. > > Anyway, you will get a lot better performance out of a PPP link than an > ATM link; certainly in the short term, and probably in the long term. > > WSimpson(a)UMich.edu > Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 > BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com > Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 > ======================================================== I think what the question is how much is lost in overhead for Frame Relay over ATM vs straight PPP on a DS3 link. (I'm assuming that since he says CIR he means FrameRelay and does not really mean SCR). My understanding is that you really arent loosing anything to cellification since the 4 Mb CIR is what the provider guarantees to you. i.e. the overhead has already been accounted for in getting to 4 Mb. The raw bandwidth required to achieve to get 4 Mb is; 4 Mb * 53/48 = 4.42 Mb To see what the PPP overhead consult RFC 1661. Regards Avitosh Pal Nortel Magellan Networks 613-723-4021 ===========================================================

1 0

Re: ATM vs. DS3
by William Allen Simpson 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

> From: Josh Beck <jbeck(a)connectnet.com> > Now, the question is, what is the overhead of the serial (ppp?) protocol > running over the T3? Since it is point to point, and not addressed, it > should be less, or is this not the case? > The framing overhead for PPP over DS3 is about 7 bytes per packet. You can make it as few as 4 (PPP header compression) or as long as 10 (32-bit checksum). I don't know anyone shipping PPP data compression yet at those speeds, although I've heard of a project using multiple Stac LZS chips. Anyway, you will get a lot better performance out of a PPP link than an ATM link; certainly in the short term, and probably in the long term. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Re: UUNet 10Plus
by Alex Rubenstein 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

To my knowledge: |-------| 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| ATM | | | 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---|Switch |--ATM--|Cisco 4700/7xx0|--(World) |Cascade| 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| | |-------| I have no idea what the xBR is on the DS3 to the NetEdge. At 03:17 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote: > >My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was >delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s >portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they >formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit. > >Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service. > >-Deepak. > >On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote: > >> Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps, >> so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology >> behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they >> call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than >> 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the >> Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the >> smallest possible presence in our network in the future. >> >> Joe Shaw - jshaw(a)insync.net >> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services >> "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee >> >> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote: >> > >> > You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge. >> > >> > -Deepak. >> > >> >> > --- "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

5 5

RE: Domain names and "The Network $olution", from The Netly News
by Wheeler, Jesse W 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

Sounds like an Oligarchy rather than a congress.. I am reminded by a quote, "Communism and Fascism looks great on paper and in theory, its a wonderful system. Try to put it into practical use, and watch it crumble like a house of cards." We have a wonderful system right now, with a quasi-democratic way-of-doing. Why ruin that by giving control over to "big brother" (in this case, big business?). Great.. Next time I log on, my PPP session will be SPONSORED by Intel.. Scared of that.. Just my $.02. -------------------------------- Jesse W. Wheeler Quality Assurance Analyst Reynolds & Reynolds HSD-PDX Email: Jesse_Wheeler(a)reyrey.com -------------------------------- >---------- >From: Declan McCullagh[SMTP:declan@pathfinder.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 1997 8:53 AM >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Domain names and "The Network $olution", from The Netly News > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ >Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 07:48:05 -0700 (PDT) >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Sender: owner-fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu >To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu >Subject: FC: Domain names and "The Network $olution", from The Netly News > >*********** > >http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1155,00.html > >The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com) >July 10, 1997 > >The Network $olution >by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > > It could have been the perfect way to liberate the Net from the > much-reviled monopoly of Network Solutions Inc., the company that > handles almost all U.S. domain name registrations. Backed by > well-regarded groups such as the Internet Society, the seven-page > proposal promised to reduce prices, increase choices -- and best of > all, really put the screws to everyone's least favorite domain name > registrar. > > But a month before the curtain is set to lift on a host of new > domains to supplement .com and .org, the ambitious plan suddenly seems > as doomed as the recently extirpated Communications Decency Act. Not > only did just one government, Albania, sign the "Memorandum of > Understanding" (MoU), but the U.S. actively opposed it. So did Network > Solutions, after they realized with gut-wrenching dismay the > consequences of losing their lucrative monopoly on .com. > > Yesterday another group of MoU critics met in Washington to form > the Open Internet Congress, which hopes to wrest control of Net > governance from "hobbyists" and "volunteers" and haul it into the > mainstream. "I don't want a bunch of volunteers playing around and > trying to run the show. I don't want petty battles over who's in > charge and who's keeping the lights on," says Andrew Sernovitz, the > president of the Association for Interactive Media, which organized > the summit. Sernovitz envisions a ruthlessly commercialized cyberspace > that's safe for companies like IBM, Intel, NBC and Time Warner > (Netly's corporate big brother) that cough up $9,000 a year to be > governing members of AIM. > > The talk yesterday was of revolution. Sernovitz spoke about > holding an Internet "Constitutional Convention" this fall. He passed > out supportive columns quoting from "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine. I > even heard folks call the MoU the move that will spark the online > equivalent of the Boston Tea Party. (Led, presumably, by firms like > Time Warner? Since that media giant also owns CNN, you can be sure the > revolution will indeed be televised.) > >[...] > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send >"subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. >More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ > >

1 0

Domain names and "The Network $olution", from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

---------- Forwarded message ---------- X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 07:48:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Sender: owner-fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FC: Domain names and "The Network $olution", from The Netly News *********** http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1155,00.html The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com) July 10, 1997 The Network $olution by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) It could have been the perfect way to liberate the Net from the much-reviled monopoly of Network Solutions Inc., the company that handles almost all U.S. domain name registrations. Backed by well-regarded groups such as the Internet Society, the seven-page proposal promised to reduce prices, increase choices -- and best of all, really put the screws to everyone's least favorite domain name registrar. But a month before the curtain is set to lift on a host of new domains to supplement .com and .org, the ambitious plan suddenly seems as doomed as the recently extirpated Communications Decency Act. Not only did just one government, Albania, sign the "Memorandum of Understanding" (MoU), but the U.S. actively opposed it. So did Network Solutions, after they realized with gut-wrenching dismay the consequences of losing their lucrative monopoly on .com. Yesterday another group of MoU critics met in Washington to form the Open Internet Congress, which hopes to wrest control of Net governance from "hobbyists" and "volunteers" and haul it into the mainstream. "I don't want a bunch of volunteers playing around and trying to run the show. I don't want petty battles over who's in charge and who's keeping the lights on," says Andrew Sernovitz, the president of the Association for Interactive Media, which organized the summit. Sernovitz envisions a ruthlessly commercialized cyberspace that's safe for companies like IBM, Intel, NBC and Time Warner (Netly's corporate big brother) that cough up $9,000 a year to be governing members of AIM. The talk yesterday was of revolution. Sernovitz spoke about holding an Internet "Constitutional Convention" this fall. He passed out supportive columns quoting from "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine. I even heard folks call the MoU the move that will spark the online equivalent of the Boston Tea Party. (Led, presumably, by firms like Time Warner? Since that media giant also owns CNN, you can be sure the revolution will indeed be televised.) [...] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

1 0

Re: Response to NOI from NTIA on DNA
by Jay R. Ashworth 10 Jul '97

10 Jul '97

You wrote: > While it is true that the lines are sometimes blurry (and contentious), the > consensus of the NANOG group seems to be that these issues are indeed > important, but *not* appropriate for the NANOG list. Yup, contentious is a good word. > This topic is not appropriate because > 1) There are other lists specifically for these issues, and > 2) It does not immediately effect the guys in the trenches I used to have a pet ostrich, too. Worthy of note also is that the topic wasn't "what do you think about the NOI, or newDNS in general", but "would you learned folks comment on what _I'm_ planning to say, because I'm not perfect". > Again, I would suggest that you redirect this issue to the other lists, and > ask you to refrain from posting this to the nanog mailing list. I'd recommend that if you intend to lean on your AUP to define the topics which are appropriate for discussion on the nanog mailing list, that you re-write it to actually _provide_ guidance on that topic, rather than simply leaving fols to twist in the wind. I've been participating in mailing lists and on newsgroups for at least 10 years; if _I_ can't figure it out, I'm not the only one. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 "...short of hiring the Unabomber, how can I +1 813 790 7592 jra(a)baylink.com get back at them?" --Andy Cramer NIC: jra3

1 0