December 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

AT&T NYC
by Bryan Heitman 04 Sep '03

04 Sep '03

Anyone seeing any problems with ATT in new york? Best regards, Bryan Heitman Interland, Inc.

10 11

Re: DC power versus AC power
by David Lesher 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

Unnamed Administration sources reported that Charles Sprickman said: > Additionally I wonder why non-conductive tools wouldn't be the norm in an > environment where there's an "open" power grid? :) "Fools rush in where....." It was in years past. I recall how excited the power room guys were over TI's first all-plastic watches. They simply did not ever wear same until then. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

4 5

Re: AOL & Cogent
by Paul Vixie 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

> The perceived "money on the table" frequently doesn't exist and attempts > to get it may produce the opposite result. well, yeah, sure, but... > * Who they shift the traffic to may be your competitor. ...at least you know they are paying SOMEBODY, thus supporting the market you want to be in. you can then compete in that market. if everybody who could peer in N places worldwide could just get peering, then all kinds of per-bit revenue for "high tier" network owners would turn into per-port revenue for exchange point operators. where's the market in that? how could a "high tier" even exist in those conditions? > If you assume the above three cases are costs and you add that to the cost > of the decreased efficiency of traffic to the target network you can > compare it to the probability that you can sell service to the former > peer. Depending on the relationship, you can guess the likelyhood. well, that's a technical consideration, and as such won't matter until we've burned through some of the overcapacity from the dot-bomb era. right now it's possible to do gaming and voip and other isochronous applications via a transit provider who can backhaul your traffic 1500 miles (or 6000 miles) to some centralised peering point and still have reasonable performance. we will need to 1000X the traffic volume again before this stops working again. which should take about a year.

5 4

DDos syn attack
by Mike Hyde 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

Just wondering how people have delt with DDOS syn attacks on port 80 of a customers server? We had an attack a couple of days ago, and it overwelmed both the customers firewall and, when we tried to turn up filtering on a 7600 cisco router, the router also. We ended up having the customer change his IP for the site under attack. We were lucky in that the attack was against an IP and not the DNS name. -- Mike Hyde <mhyde(a)escape.ca>

9 10

Re: AOL & Cogent
by Paul Vixie 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

> > ... if everybody who could peer in N places worldwide could just get > > peering, then all kinds of per-bit revenue for "high tier" network > > owners would turn into per-port revenue for exchange point > > operators. ... > Well, I think as a local operator you can not expect to be able to > peer with everyone to receive global routes but theres no reason not > to exchange local routes comparable to the area your own network > covers, this wont affect transit sales and wont cost you in backhaul > either. Thats a slightly different perspective than assuming you can > get a providers to exchange all their network with you in a settlement > free bilateral. there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind of sense. peering isn't a technology decision, it's a business decision. as a local operator myself (ISC), i know that i should not expect peering other than if someone wants their customers to have better access to the f-root server or the kernel.org ftp server or whatever. it's actually easier for me, as a nonprofit, to attract what mr. bill calls 'content peering' relationships, since i don't compete with the folks i peer with. however, in a former job, i took the reins of abovenet and used a lot of mfn fiber and mfn resources (back when they had resources to use, that is) and built a network that touched down in more places with more gigawhuppas and more bit-miles and so on than about half of the current so called "top tier" networks had then (or indeed have now). i surrounded PSI on all sides, with a network that carried more actual traffic and had more provable headroom, and more endpoints. yet they still insisted on playing peering games. (perhaps if they'd won those games they would still exist today?) peering is not about equity, or ratios, or technology. it's about money. sadly, too many people are focusing on their share of the current market rather than on the size of the eventual market, so, short-term thinking pervades the space, and the actual customers who source and sink all this traffic don't ride a curve that looks anything like moore's law. try a thought experiment. take about $450M in vee cee money, buy up a lot of bankrupt capital and routes, hire a bunch of starving backbone engineers and sales/marketing/finance/etc people at downsized salaries, and build a network that attends about 40 major carrier interconnect locations (some internet exchanges, some carrier motels). document the hell out of it, so that when you enter peering negotiations with the current "top tier" networks you've got "attachment A" already done and audited. now ask yourself the chances of becoming defaultless and settlement free before you run out of cash. (now, does anybody still think peering is a technology issue?) > And definitely to your gamers and possibly your VoIP folks to > (depending on details) they will be very fickle on your network > connectivity and the quality of local peerings is crucial to these > applications, gaming is growing very quickly as more people get flat > fee broadband and to a residential access provider I wouldnt > underestimate how much it could hurt to increase the path to the > servers by a couple of hops. like i said, we're living in the shadow of bankrupt overcapacity, and until we burn it off, "cost per bit-mile" is going to be too low to measure when compared with "cost per peering edge". the next six to twelve months will favour the "small number of large peering edges" model. once the capital and routes are rightpriced, and transit contracts are rightpriced, and we reach some kind of equilibrium between the value and cost of traffic, then some kind of technological argument about peering might hold some sway.

5 5

AOL & Cogent
by Andrew Partan 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

I was poking around to see what was happening with Cogent and AOL and ran into some interesting info. The test that Cogent failed was a 2:1 ratio; Cogent was at 3:1 and AOL insisted they be at no more than 2:1 for free peering. AOL wants Cogent to pay for peering - the pricing I've heard is $50-/meg for paid peering - which I think is more than street price for transit... Hmm; I wonder if this change in policy has anything to do with John Schanz's recent move from Sprint to AOL? --asp

16 22

Re: AOL & Cogent
by Paul Vixie 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

> Is it just me or does all this make Internap's Business model look > really good? i think it's just you.

1 0

Re: AOL & Cogent
by Paul Vixie 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

> Similarly to peering, a base amount is required to make this crazy > thing we all run work. As we've seen with companies like PSI, those > who terminate, or loose significant peering generally end up dead. no part of worldcom's failure traces to uunet's decision to restrict their peering back in 1993/1994. in fact, that decision was has been spectacularly successful from a business standpoint. unfortunately, one example does not a trend make. also unfortunately, one example can be terrifically inspiring to others. so while i accept your use of the word "generally", i have to say it doesn't look that way to the business people who have quarterly numbers to make and are willing looking at their fellow network operators as possible meat. oh and while i considered PSI's vision faulty, i do not believe that their peering games had anything to do with their failure. (nor do i believe that winning those games would have saved them.) now, let's resolve a point of confusion: > > ...at least you know they are paying SOMEBODY, thus supporting the > > market you want to be in. you can then compete in that market. if > > everybody who could peer in N places worldwide could just get > > peering, then all kinds of per-bit revenue for "high tier" network > > owners would turn into per-port revenue for exchange point > > operators. where's the market in that? how could a "high tier" > > even exist in those conditions? > > Argument #1, don't peer with the little guy because it takes revenue > away from ISP's in general. > > > as a local operator myself (ISC), i know that i should not expect > > peering other than if someone wants their customers to have better > > access to the f-root server or the kernel.org ftp server or > > whatever. it's actually easier for me, as a nonprofit, to attract > > what mr. bill calls 'content peering' relationships, since i don't > > compete with the folks i peer with. > > Argument #2, it's easy for me, a little guy to get peering because > I don't compete with the ISP's, I just buy from them. > > So which is it? Do you peer with the little guys who don't run > networks because content peering is good, or do you not peer with > them because it forces them to buy from somebody, and if everyone > does that it's good for ISP's in general? as a business decision, peering with someone like ISC is a no-op. it neither costs nor makes any money, doesn't shift cost or revenue toward anybody, etc. the two reasons for this are (a) the potential peer is not going to be selling transit (therefore there's no revenue stream to want a cut of) and (b) the potential peer isn't making any porno or other revenue, and so is an unlikely transit customer for its own traffic. > It seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too. actually i'm trying to explain rather than defend. my arm is still cramped from signing 500 peering agreements at a time back at AS6461, and when i next run an international IP backbone i hope to sign 10X as many. peering is good for business, but only if one has no natural monopoly or first mover advantage (like uunet had) that makes alternatives viable, and only if one's vision extends beyond the next quarterly SEC filing.

1 0

RE: DC power versus AC power
by Kuhtz, Christian 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

From: Wayne Bogan [mailto:wbogan@infoave.net] > For those AC only powered units, you can also purchase an invertor > for DC to AC conversion. You would then have the advantages of DC > for your AC equipment. This does, however, add the potential of > another point of failure such as fuses or breakers in the invertor. Not to mention additional cost of wasted electricity (which does add up significantly when it is anything but a spot solution) and pitfalls of inverters (like their imperfect sine waves). And if you're putting spot solution UPS units out into the bottom of a particular rack, be ware their canny ability to catch fire when the price is right. Inverters or rectifiers should be point solutions in a plant layout. If you have a lot of AC & DC, get two protected plants. Only way to live. Sometimes that's not just nice to have, but simply required. If you're primarily a systems shop and have environmentally conditioned space, get AC. If you're in a nasty colo spot, with poor environmental (read: not guaranteed meat locker climate 24x7), get DC & NEBS hardware or hardware which meets NEBS almost entirely but doesn't carry the sticker for some silly reason such as "easily flammable plastic used for front grill". Depending on what your colo requires. There are many different flavors of colo. Speaking of flavors, consider the impact of a turf vendor based on whatever decision you chose when going into colo space. May or may not be an issue. See what equipment offers what, do the math on cost of plant and gear, pros & cons. And make a business decision based on engineering data. (uh, right) But, as Stephen already eluded to... Compared with an AC plant design, to me, one of the biggest drawbacks of a DC plant is safety (I have had to kick a fellow worker away from the rack before). One of the biggest advantages is simplicity of design when it comes to battery plant. There is no universal answer, it all depends. And one ends up shuffling off and having to do a bunch of homework. Of course, this is all IMHO and I've been wrong before. Thanks, Christian -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Bogan [mailto:wbogan@infoave.net] Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 1:06 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: DC power versus AC power ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk(a)cisco.com> To: <ipdude(a)cattle-today.com>; <nanog(a)merit.edu> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 1:58 AM Subject: Re: DC power versus AC power > > Thus spake ip dude <ipdude(a)cattle-today.com>: > > Hello NANOG group. I am trying to make a case for using DC power > > supplies versus AC power supplies for typical IP networking > > equipment. Is there any published whitepapers detailing this subject? > > Do you have any suggestions to aide my argument? > > Most of the argument depends on the facility you're in. Assuming you're > asking as an end-customer: > > DC requires clue from your staff when installing/removing equipment, and > this means safety training at a minimum. Power choice also affects your > equipment purchasing: DC versions of gear are often priced higher, and gear > not intended for telcos/ISPs may not have a DC option available at all. > > OTOH, many colos -- especially ones run by telcos -- don't provide AC UPS. > If you want AC UPS in these environments, you'll have to provide your own, > which is expensive, bulky, and a maintainance burden. > > If you're building your own datacenter, please specify that and I'm sure > you'll get a whole different discussion :) > > S > > ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers."

12 21

Re: DC power versus AC power
by Steven M. Bellovin 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

In message <004f01c2b018$4ac14900$ae876540(a)amer.cisco.com>, "Stephen Sprunk" wr ites: > >Thus spake joe mcguckin <joe(a)via.net>: >> It only takes 30ma to put your heart into atrial fibrillation. In the >> usa, gfi's are set to trip at 5ma. > >Did you mean 5A, or am I misunderstanding GFIs? > No -- 5 ma is correct. (GFIs measure the difference in current between the hot and neutral leads -- if it exceeds 5 ma, it trips.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

1 0