July 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: UUNet 10Plus
by Alex Rubenstein 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

Which NAP is that? At 12:20 PM 7/9/97 -0700, Sanjay Dani wrote: > >>questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand >>that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know >>why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and >>allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing > >The last time I talked to a UUnet sales rep with a clue, he >"pretty much" acknowledged that the reason their 10 Plus service >is not much more expensive than the dual T1 service is because they >know the customer can't push 10Mb anyway. He "pretty much" refused to >give the 10 plus service within a NAP --where our router is colocated >with theirs and PNIs are allowed-- over a 10baseT (better than >the netedge) or local loop DS3 handoff. > >Sales people never say things directly, hence the "pretty much" quote >above which is my reading of his excuses. > >Sanjay. > --- "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

1 0

Re: UUNet 10Plus
by Alex Rubenstein 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

Also; can you get the NetEdge to do Full Duplex? That could improve your througput. 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

1 0

Re: Internet Backbone Index
by Robert Laughlin 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

In response to the *smart* comments (not repeated here), the percentages given are of external traffic only. The 2% not accounted for is due to rounding down the results. I suppose I can do it to more decimal places if you really want it. Also we do retain lots of our own traffic, but I felt it was irrevalent for the purposes of this discussion, so retained traffic was not included in the calculations. Best Regards, Robert Laughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DataXchange purchases transit from uunet, mci & sprint. But we also > > aggressively try to peer with those who wish to peer. Gary, you are wrong > > to say that 90% of traffic is for uunet, mci or sprint. I have the > > statistics on my own network to prove this. Typically we see a breakdown > > like this: > > > > MCI 22% > > Sprint 7% > > UUNET 21% > > all other (via peering) 48% > > > > In our opinion since only 52% of the traffic has its best routing thru > > uunet, sprint & mci, bi-lateral peering is definately worthwhile. > >

1 0

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Results
by Eric Germann 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

If you really want to test raw performance, why not just enable the chargen service on a router in the core and let him suck that down and measure throughput. No more effective DOS attach than 4 simultaneous chargen sessions on a T1. I suspect a 7513 should be able to spit a few characters per second :) Eric At 11:24 AM 7/9/97 -0700, John Leong wrote: >n Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Jack Rickard wrote: >> I discussed the universal test page >> > suggestion with Gene Shklar this afternoon and we will make it so. > >Universal test page is certainly a [good] step - but it is a step (one >among many) towards [comparative] testing the performance between the >test machine and a *SPECIFIC* web server .... but not the peformance of >the backbone (even though it clearly is a major component of the >result). There are simply too many uncontrolled variables still >outstanding. > >By the way, we have given considerable thought on the attributes of such >standardised test page. ... starting with what is the test about. It >would be a good idea if a sub group of interested parties can get off >line and work on this under some frame work (IETF, NANOG, CAIDA, ... or >just an ad hoc BOF group) and then report the finding back to the >mailing list. > >So, if anyone is interested to work on a standardized web page, send me >mail and I will try to get a seperate discussion list going, do some >serious work ... and reduces the S/N ratio of this list. > >Regards, >John Leong > >

2 1

UUNet 10Plus
by Joe Shaw 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

Anyone out there using UUNet's 10 plus setup? We were one of the original beta testers, and have had consistant complaints about the performance of the link because of the 10Mbps ethernet handoff to us. We can only get around 6Mbps out of the link before it hoses, and we know that's really what you're going to get out of 10Mbit ethernet, which is why we've asked for a different handoff meathod. Also, they charge us $2000 for local loop to run us to a building downtown, and from there it comes back into the building we're in, into a room down the hall from our NOC. They have their own reasons for this I'm sure, but no one's been able to tell me why. Our problem is that we've maxed out our supposed 10Mbps link, so they want us to get a metered DS3, charging us $4000 more a month, plus a setup fee. Now, under current UUNet performance, it's not likely we're going to do anything like that. It makes no sense to pay $4000 more, plus a $2000 install fee to get mediocre performance out of them. My question is, has anyone else out there with 10Plus service gotten a different handoff from UUNet? If so, how'd you get them to do it, and if not, did you ask? We've been quite upset with UUNet for the past 5 months, and seriously considering dropping them down to a t1 and using the DS3 we just had installed from anouther carrier as our main path to the net, but that does away with being really multi-homed. Any suggestions, questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing tiered DS3 service, and if so, why even have 10Plus access? Doesn't make sense, unless you're a marketer... Joe Shaw - jshaw(a)insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee

3 5

remove
by Infante, Andy 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

Can anyone please send me the address to send a remove command to for this list? Thanks, Andy Infante Andy Infante Network Systems Analyst Duke Clinical Research Institute Pager (919) 409-0131 Voice (919) 416-3033

1 0

Re: UUNet 10Plus
by Sanjay Dani 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

>questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand >that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know >why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and >allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing The last time I talked to a UUnet sales rep with a clue, he "pretty much" acknowledged that the reason their 10 Plus service is not much more expensive than the dual T1 service is because they know the customer can't push 10Mb anyway. He "pretty much" refused to give the 10 plus service within a NAP --where our router is colocated with theirs and PNIs are allowed-- over a 10baseT (better than the netedge) or local loop DS3 handoff. Sales people never say things directly, hence the "pretty much" quote above which is my reading of his excuses. Sanjay.

1 0

Re: Suspension of reissuing deleted domain names (fwd)
by Edward Fang 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

I think the reason NSI took the position they did was because these companies re-register the domain after non-payment once it is released back into the pool (probably repeatedly, and thereby causing the 'tens of thousands of requests'). I think the only way to stop this type of action is for NSI to require guaranteed payment on registration (account, credit card, etc). The grace period given is too generous and allowing this type of ridiculous speculation. Ed On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: :On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, David H. Holtzman wrote: : :> Until further notice, Network Solutions will be temporarily suspending the :> process of deleting domain names for which payment has not been received. :> In recent weeks the InterNIC has been spammed repeatedly with tens of :> thousands of requests by domain name speculators attempting to register : :What can be down about domainbrokers.com? Have a look at the files at :http://www.domainbrokers.com/asp/. I just tried to register a domain for :a customer, and found that it had been registered the day before by :domainbrokers.com. I believe they have no intention to use the domain :name. All they hope to do is sell it, probably for $1000. They appear to :have setup no DNS records other than NS records for it. : :Companies like this that piss in the domain name registration pool should :be banned from registering domains. :

2 1

Keynote/Boardwatch Results
by Jack Rickard 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

I hate to say I told you so. Actually, I don't, but I can be such a pain in the ass anyway what difference does it make. It would appear that everyone is pretty smugly satisfied by concensus that the performance series we ran actually measures server performance and that since all ISPs run weeny home servers, this was not "really" a test, flawed methodology, etc. I corresponded with Doug the Hump at Digex about this. I've liked this guy since I first met him largely because he's funny and doesn't take himself too seriously. He's got a yen for black helicopters that still has me in stitches. In any event, he didn't appear to be emotionally involved, but noted that he did think their web server was the problem in their case and that it was a real issue with the other backbones as well. He said that if we had measured one of their honking customer web servers that it would have all been better. Now I was clear with Doug, as I have been in this mailing list, that servers DO have impact. When you are attempting to measure end to end, you certainly hope that the results cummulatively represent everything that has an effect. But I have been very clear that I didn't buy the "measuring server" theory. It will have an effect, but not near the effect you all have apparently dreamed up amongst you with no data at all. Anyway, Doug coughed the names of a couple of "honkin" customer sites. One on a UNIX machine running Apache. One on an NT server. As it so happens they are the NIKE site and the FORBES site. I agreed to run them all for a few days and publish the results rather openly. Here they are: Www.digex.com Metro Area Abbr Population Mean Std Dev Data Pts. Rating Omaha OMA 640000 - - - - Norfolk ORF 1443000 0.917 0.787 477 - Milwaukee MKE 1607000 2.641 5.545 427 - Cleveland CLE 2860000 2.893 4.155 432 - Washington D.C WAS 6727000 3.326 10.274 436 - Kansas City MKC 1583000 3.334 3.881 440 - Detroit DTT 5187000 3.424 11.593 470 - Atlanta ATL 2960000 3.434 5.774 447 - Denver DEN 1980000 3.497 2.725 433 - Tampa TPA 2068000 3.541 9.753 440 - Minneapolis-St. Paul MSP 2539000 3.697 7.263 420 - Pittsburgh PIT 2395000 4.039 9.484 441 - Miami MIA 3193000 4.336 11.227 409 - Chicago CHI 8240000 4.433 7.977 432 - Philadelphia PHL 5893000 5.687 36.621 446 - Columbus CMH 1345000 6.582 10.275 352 - San Diego SAN 2498000 7.124 6.563 111 - Houston HOU 3731000 7.156 19.197 426 - Boston BOS 5455000 8.147 68.522 342 - New York NYC 19550000 8.911 48.549 436 - San Francisco SFO 6253000 9.462 70.834 367 - Phoenix PHX 2238000 12.226 26.802 447 - Seattle SEA 2970000 14.989 74.818 201 - Dallas-Ft. Worth DFW 4037000 16.24 36.844 421 - Los Angeles LAX 14532000 33.879 78.169 572 - Salt Lake City SLC 1072000 48.719 80.656 383 - Portland PDX 1793000 65.23 88.641 446 - 11.287 42.959 10654 www.nike.com Metro Area Abbr Population Mean Std Dev Data Pts. Rating Omaha OMA 640000 - - - - Norfolk ORF 1443000 1.359 6.704 385 - Washington D.C WAS 6727000 2.838 6.486 426 - Cleveland CLE 2860000 2.892 5.958 424 - Detroit DTT 5187000 3.032 8.818 380 - Milwaukee MKE 1607000 3.262 10.087 420 - Tampa TPA 2068000 3.263 5.876 427 - Philadelphia PHL 5893000 3.697 7.305 433 - Kansas City MKC 1583000 3.82 7.477 429 - Los Angeles LAX 14532000 3.979 7.142 441 - Denver DEN 1980000 4.22 8.725 421 - Miami MIA 3193000 4.338 13.774 398 - Pittsburgh PIT 2395000 4.392 10.68 431 - Minneapolis-St. Paul MSP 2539000 4.545 8.688 409 - Atlanta ATL 2960000 4.577 16.279 438 - New York NYC 19550000 5.163 13.025 427 - Boston BOS 5455000 5.725 16.02 347 - Chicago CHI 8240000 5.95 11.926 425 - San Francisco SFO 6253000 7.254 21.74 353 - Houston HOU 3731000 7.557 14.675 421 - Seattle SEA 2970000 9.359 22.033 184 - Columbus CMH 1345000 9.991 21.586 358 - Phoenix PHX 2238000 14.089 25.896 432 - Dallas-Ft. Worth DFW 4037000 17.677 44.361 407 - San Diego SAN 2498000 19.029 10.833 16 - Salt Lake City SLC 1072000 37.156 92.765 302 - Portland PDX 1793000 79.404 166.148 437 - 9.868 44.374 9971 www.forbes.com Metro Area Abbr Population Mean Std Dev Data Pts. Rating Omaha OMA 640000 - - - - Kansas City MKC 1583000 0.0050 0.0 14 - Norfolk ORF 1443000 2.165 11.616 380 - Miami MIA 3193000 2.715 10.382 396 - Washington D.C WAS 6727000 3.151 22.964 419 - Philadelphia PHL 5893000 3.177 14.547 423 - Milwaukee MKE 1607000 3.204 19.791 416 - Atlanta ATL 2960000 3.364 17.068 434 - Minneapolis-St. Paul MSP 2539000 3.847 10.974 405 - Cleveland CLE 2860000 3.879 20.768 415 - Denver DEN 1980000 3.974 22.303 417 - Tampa TPA 2068000 4.001 19.877 421 - Pittsburgh PIT 2395000 4.333 25.179 426 - Detroit DTT 5187000 4.428 20.891 376 - New York NYC 19550000 4.912 21.919 423 - Boston BOS 5455000 5.347 30.106 340 - Seattle SEA 2970000 6.324 12.105 179 - Chicago CHI 8240000 6.378 26.431 421 - San Francisco SFO 6253000 6.575 35.339 351 - Houston HOU 3731000 7.49 20.885 417 - Columbus CMH 1345000 7.726 19.924 351 - Dallas-Ft. Worth DFW 4037000 13.068 22.705 404 - Phoenix PHX 2238000 15.445 50.526 427 - Los Angeles LAX 14532000 23.117 150.429 460 - Salt Lake City SLC 1072000 47.801 227.832 297 - San Diego SAN 2498000 85.378 153.109 14 - Portland PDX 1793000 89.043 241.734 425 - 11.53 79.068 9451 The bottom line is that there is some slight variation, but as I predicted, not much. And as it so happens, it was generally in the wrong direction. Nike was a little better on the mean and a little worse on the standard deviation. Forbes was a little worse (in fractions) from Digex on the mean, and more so on the deviation. Digex's original figures for the April 20- May 20 period were 9.162 seconds on the mean and 31.752 on the standard deviation - slightly better than average. Note that 30 days and five days are apples and oranges if you comprendo fruit. The means for the five day period were roughly 9.9, 11.3, and 11.5 with the "weeny" Digex server in the middle. So yeah, servers do have an impact, but not nearly what you had hoped and believed. I would say miniscule in a universe where our results ran from 1.5 to 26.8 seconds. And while I'm not shy about "I told you so's" my real reason for putting this out is that I have heard from several backbones that are scrambling to upgrade and move their home page servers etc. I personally would get them up to what you think they ought to be anyway, but if you go to extraordinary measures, you're probably going to be disappointed in how little the numbers move - as I predicted. It just won't move the numbers much. A little perhaps, and if you're not careful - potentially the wrong direction. Doug was pretty emphatic that these customer servers were the "good" ones on the good part of the net, and the home server was the weeny one. Maybe Doug Mohney can jump in and remind me which was which as far as NT and UNIX goes if anyone is interested. I would guess off hand that Forbes is taking a little more load than Nike, but I may be reading messages from God in standard deviation cloud formations. There just isn't that much difference - certainly not in the mean. The bottom line is that if we are actually measuring server performance, we should be able to measure three different servers, two avowed muscle boxes and one avowed weeny one, all on the same network (connected differently I'm told) and get at least as wide a variation as we saw between networks. We didn't by about a mile and a fortnight. At LEAST it ought to be in the predicted direction. This clearly was not. Good theory - but not so - even in the lab. Again, I think you guys should take a look at this stuff a little more open mindedly and professionally. It's certainly NOT to scientific laboratory standards, but it is certainly interesting and I would claim very VALID information. Better information than you have previously had at your disposal. It's an attempt to look at the FOREST, not tree limb diameters, leaf patterns and nutrient flows - all very interesting though those may be I do grant you. A great deal of this network has operated on theories that once scaled up, nobody really knows if they work that way or not. I can tell you from personal experience that most of what I know is wrong, and I find that out over, and over, and over again. I might also mention that a lot of what I'm told turns out to be wrong as well. I'm only going to SUGGEST that I may not be alone. We'll continue to work on it. I discussed the universal test page suggestion with Gene Shklar this afternoon and we will make it so. Again, I don't think it will move any numbers around much, but certainly, as Forest Gump says, ONE LESS THING.... And if you can make a case for a different server ON YOUR OWN NETWORK, we will certainly entertain requests to shoot at another machine. Nominally July 15-August 15th though I'm not signing up to those precise dates at this time. Regards =================================================================== Jack Rickard Boardwatch Magazine Editor/Publisher 8500 West Bowles Ave., Ste. 210 jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com Littleton, CO 80123 www.boardwatch.com Voice: (303)973-6038 ===================================================================

5 4

Re: Internet Backbone Index
by garyz＠savvis.com 09 Jul '97

09 Jul '97

Sean did not know that Peering is what makes you a National Backbone Provider. It may make you what has been coined as a tier 1 provider, but I do not see that this can scale as more companies access the net. If you remember at the Nanog meeting, Randy address this model of 2 to 5 peers/transits if I remember the discuss and that is what we are doing at SAVVIS. Fortunately Our target markets are not just libraries and other information providers, it's EVERYONE that needs a T1 and above connection to the Internet. How many cities are you in Sean, where are DRA's POPs for customers to access? How much bandwidth does DRA have to get these customer to other network? Let's compare bandwidth shall we. When 80 to 90 percent of the Internet traffic is to MCI, SPRINT and UUNET then our model is the right way to build this, not to try and see how many peering agreements one can get. You are right about our model, IT WORKS. Gary Zimmerman V.P. of Network Engineering Savvis Communications Corp. email: garyz(a)savvis.com http://www.savvis.com Office: 314.719.2423 Address: 7777 Bonhomme Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63105 ---------- > From: Sean Donelan <SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Internet Backbone Index > Date: Tuesday, July 08, 1997 3:55 PM > > >I would really like to know how Boardwatch can continually say Savvis is a > >national backbone provider when they peer with nobody, and that is part of > >their business plan, and only buy transit from the big 5. Then they > >neglect to list DRA as a backbone provider, when DRA appears at many major > >exchanges and peers with damn near everyone under the sun from what I can > > Publisher's perogative. > > I'm always amused when the latest edition of the Boardwatch ISP directory > comes out. Fortunately, DRA's target markets are libraries and other > information providers, not ISPs, although we have a few ISPs as customers. > Even though DRA tried to provide accurate information to Boardwatch, it > always seems to get mangled in the Boardwatch editorial process. For > example, in the latest issue DRA's listing says we have a 0.099 Mbps > connection with Sprint. I don't know how to even order a 0.099 Mbps > connection. In a previous issue Boardwatch said DRA sold dialup connections > for $19.95/month, even though we had told Boardwatch DRA didn't offer > any dialup services. At least Boardwatch no longer lists Sean Doran as > the chief engineer for InternetMCI. > > After awhile one gets tired of trying to correct other people's mistakes > over and over again. Maybe I should start following the InternetMCI model, > and claim everything is a big secret. > -- > Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO > Affiliation given for identification not representation

4 3