February 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RED deployment testing
by John Kristoff 17 Feb '01

17 Feb '01

Sally, I've starting monitoring packet drops on a couple of my routers. In particular, our Internet router, which currently has 18 Mb/s on the WAN side and 100 Mb/s side, I'm going to put RED on (the WAN side) for outbound traffic. I'm hoping RED can help keep the output queues lower and more stable than they are now in order to improve overall latency/jitter between us and our ISP. I was going to use the parameter suggestions you have outlined in REDparameters.txt. I'm currently using a Cisco 7206 running IOS version 12.0(11.6)S on our border router. I was planning on setting the parameters the same for all classes of traffic. Our Internet WAN link is currently being monitored here: http://netmon.depaul.edu/mrtg/uunet/rtrinternet.depaul.edu.6.html and I recently set the following page to watch packet drops: http://netmon.depaul.edu/mrtg/aqm/rtrinternet.depaul.edu.1.html Note, this machine's clock is one hour ahead. I need to talk to the sysadmin for this system to get that fixed one of these days. Do you have any thoughts on my RED testing? Do you want to be updated on the progress over the next few weeks? FYI... we'll be moving our Internet connection to the Chicago NAP soon and at that point I'll be able to test RED on a much higher speed link (OC3c). John

1 0

T3 Latency
by Charles Scott 17 Feb '01

17 Feb '01

Quick Question: We just installed a T3 from our 7204 to a major backbone provider and I'm seeing 20 ms between us and them when I ping right from our router to theirs. I also see it consistanly for that hop on traceroutes to and from us. That seems to be rather a lot of latency for that line. The thing that bothers me is that it's a consistant 20 ms when the line isn't loaded. Any thoughts? Chuck Scott cscott(a)gaslightmedia.com

4 4

Re: T3 Latency
by Steven M. Bellovin 17 Feb '01

17 Feb '01

In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102171056510.4084-100000(a)merlin.noc.adelphia.net>, Paul Bradford writes: > >Charles, > One thing I have a hard time explaining to some customers is that >latency is one thing.... what does it tell me... it tells me that from >one hop to another things are a bit slow.... the real important thing is >how are you're throughput speeds... I started a thread a while back asking >a similar question... is ping/traceroute a good measurement of throughput >on the link? the unanimous response was use pathchar or mtr or ttcp which >all give you a better guestimate of how your link is doing performance >wise.. Latency and packet loss both put an upper bound on throughput. See, for example, http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm98/tp/abs_25.html or draft-ietf-pilc-error-06.txt --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

1 0

Re: happy bday IGS-R
by Eric Sobocinski 17 Feb '01

17 Feb '01

At 12:28 AM -0500, 02/14/2001, Paul Lantinga wrote: >No command line help, no command line completion, no cidr notation, no >motorcar, not a single luxury... it's primitive as can be[1]. So, does >'mlb' still work for cisco? It appears not. "mlb" shows no matches in the company directory. Also no matches in the internal newsgroups archives ('95+), though I wouldn't expect a developer to have much presence there anyway. >10 points if you ever worked on an IOS version older than 8.2(3). Subtract 7 points if you miss it. ;-)

3 2

Systemic problems at Verizon
by Sean Donelan 17 Feb '01

17 Feb '01

Verizon is continuing to have network problems. http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12557-2001Feb15.html Although Verizon's spokesperson may be correct, it may not be a systemic network-wide problem. However, it does seem to be evidence of a systemic management problem. Are things as bad in Verizon country as they got in Ameritech country? Eventually the various state PUC's had to intervene in Ameritech's service problems.

19 24

gTLD Informational Message
by Brad Verd 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: Tuesday, the 20th, Verisign Global Registry Services will be removing a.root-servers.net from the authoritative NS set serving com/net/org. In it's place we will be adding l.gtld-servers.net to the authoritative NS set. The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.41.3.38 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 207.200.81.69 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.17.208.67 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 213.177.194.5 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 202.153.114.101 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.41.3.101 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 205.188.185.18 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.36.144.133 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 203.181.106.5 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 208.206.240.5 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.41.162.30 This will not require any change to root.cache file and a.root-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel for enough time to accommodate the zones TTL's. -------------------------------------- Brad Verd Operations Manager Resolution Systems Verisign Global Registry Services Email - bverd(a)verisign.com ---------------------------------------

1 0

Upgrade season
by Sean Donelan 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

It seems like a lot of folks have run into software upgrade problems all together. @Home, Telocity, Abovenet, Exodus and probably more recently had some type of snafu which their customer service people said was related to upgrades in progress. Are we at that point in the upgrade cycle where everyone needs to make changes at the same time? It doesn't seem to be a common vendor problem, as far as I can tell it was a different issue in each case. But after a relatively slow period in December (holidays) and January; I noticed an uptick in people sending me mail about issues during the first couple of weeks of February. I'm theorizing there is some natural calendar function which results in people doing upgrades about the same time at the beginning of February. The same thing seemed to happen with California power plants. After being down only 3,000MW; in February California is down 10,000MW of plant capacity due to scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.

3 2

NANOG meeting and the XFL
by Mike Gibbs 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

If anyone wants to go, several of us are driving to Birmingham AL to what the XFL game on Sunday. The game is at 3pm cst and Birmingham is 157 miles from Atlanta. Tickets are still available. Mike Gibbs

1 0

Lan connectivity loss
by Kevin_Badeen＠harte-hanks.com 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

Scenario, We have a meshed network, with two primary hub sites, Router A and Router B. {Internet} | [Inet-rtr] | [core-rtr]-------------------<[router a]--------------------< frame cloud | ||||||||||||| [Router C]--------------<[Router B]--------------------<frame cloud Router A lost it's connection to the frame cloud. All of the sites hanging off of Router B (via PVC's) began to experience the same problem: The routers were able to ping internet addresses, but the workstations on the local LAN's were not. However, the workstations were able to ping Router B's serial interfaces facing the cloud, but could not get through to Router C. All routers in organization are running eigrp, as well as using static routes. All routers are in the same AS. Router B 's local LAN was able to ping any internet address. When Router A's frame port was restored, the problem disappeared. Any ideas? Kevin Badeen Unix Administrator Harte-Hanks Response Management 512.434.5999 Tel 877.446.5548 Pag

1 0

Re: Systemic problems at Verizon
by Howard C. Berkowitz 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

>There exist little red caps that fit onto 66 blocks and binding >posts. They're hard to find, though. If someone here knows of >the supplier, I'll buy a few hundred. > >In the 60's there was a special red ty-wrap that went around/over >posts/punches for ""national security"" lines. You had to cut same >off to test, and {in theory} requisition a replacement. I've only >see same in BSP's so I've no idea if they ever got much use. I think the BSP called them Special Service Protection, and there was a more stringent version called Special Safeguarding Measures. The latter, IIRC, didn't quite qualify as a military grade Protected Wireline Distribution System, which went to the extents of pressurized conduit with intrusion detectors. > >We used to protect leased metallic pairs in a simpler manner; we >parked +130 Tip/-130 Ring on same. When Mr. Green put his butt set >on same; if his fingers didn't alert him, the BANG in his ear did. Someone did that once with _stranded_ wire, so the strand was fine enough to puncture the skin. I found myself in a corner with very little recollection of how I got there, and am really not sure that if there had not been a wall there, I would have kept going. Oh well...I didn't freeze to the conductor.

1 0