- Test - lists.nanog.org

Is the answer a bigger club? (was Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers)
by Sean Donelan 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

On Wed, 04 April 2001, Stephen Griffin wrote: > Again, very little reason to need multiple providers if the provider > is good. If you're concerned about circuit grooming, write it into > your contract with _severe_ penalties for failure to meet the terms > of the contract. Kung Fu flashback sequence: In time, you will understand. Fortunately, lawyers can not change the laws of nature or statistics no matter what they tell you. No matter what you write into your contract, stuff will go wrong. Car insurance means when you crash your car, the insurance company pays for a new car. It does not mean your car will never crash. By lowering the deductible, all you are changing is the premium you pay. Want a 99% SLA, the premium is $X. Want a 99.999% the premium is $X+N. Want 100% the premium is $X+X+N. VISA (the credit card people) uses two independent providers for its international network, and has a department of people verifying the redundancy of their network. The US Government uses two independent providers for its international network, and has a department of people verifying the redudancy of the circuits which "can't go down." Guess what, NORAD once lost all of its triple-redundant, diversely-routed circuits due to a carrier mistake. If you aren't the size of the US Government or VISA (I'm not sure which has more power) I suspect you won't be able to write penalties more severe than either of them imposed on the carriers. And even with those penalties, circuits still fail due to carrier mistakes. When I did the math, and paid money for circuits, I discovered for the premium I paid for a 100% SLA I could often buy two diverse circuits from two different providers with no SLA for less. And to cap it off, the actual reliability of those two circuits was better than the single 100% SLA circuit I would pay extra.

1 0

Qwest frame-relay outage?
by Bulger, Tim 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

> I just got off the phone with Qwest and they said they are experiencing a > widespread outage that is affecting the majority of their frame-relay > network. I have PVCs down between Texas and California and Virginia. Is > anyone else experiencing this problem? The ticket number was 219247. > > Thanks, > Tim Bulger > EA.com Network Engineering

1 0

Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by smd＠clock.org 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

rja asks: | smd, are you able to get diverse local paths over there ? ^^^^^ Ironically, Jesper Skriver (on your To: line) is as close to my "here" as just about anyone else on the list, and is working for a rather large provider of local loops, so I wouldn't discount his answer just because he's not me. :-) I would comment further, but I lack sufficient bandwidth in the absence of my slightly delayed DSL to be able to type it out... Sean. P.S.: Isn't it cool that none of us is using an address which in any way informs a person who didn't already know, who it is that we work for? P.P.S.: More useful answer: yes, in some places in Europe, but not everywhere. Where possible, pricing and amount of work necessary are non-uniform.

4 3

RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Roeland Meyer 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

> From: Stephen Griffin [mailto:stephen.griffin@rcn.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:31 PM > No one has said that multiple circuits via multiple entrance > facilities > via multiple carriers is a bad thing. Actually, someone did. See original posting.

1 0

Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Hank Nussbacher 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

I have a feeling this one may start another very large NANOG thread: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0402routing.html -Hank

7 11

RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Roeland Meyer 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

> From: Stephen Griffin [mailto:stephen.griffin@rcn.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 3:18 PM > > In the referenced message, Roeland Meyer said: > <snip> > > My latest quote for a new DSL connection is 42 days. T1s > are 6-8 weeks. > > Bigger pipes are 2-6 months for the fastest response, many > cases are longer. > > > > Back to business failures, the DSL world is looking rocky > at best. Rythms > > isn't looking very solid and neither is Covad. Some of the > NorthPoint > > customers are not going with either, electing to go with > the local RBOC > > instead (despite the hassles and long lead-times). What > many businesses > > really need is true multi-homing. > <snip> > > So, if people picked better providers, they wouldn't need to > multihome. > You feel you need to multihome, because you keep picking DSL, > which just > isn't a good choce for "mission critical applications". You can think that way all you want to, right up to the time when your local RBOC decides it will no longer serve you. At which time, good luck shoving those bytes down the wire.

3 2

Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
by Sean Donelan 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

On Wed, 04 April 2001, Stephen Griffin wrote: > So, if people picked better providers, they wouldn't need to multihome. > You feel you need to multihome, because you keep picking DSL, which just > isn't a good choce for "mission critical applications". Name a provider which hasn't had a problem in the last 5 years, and has been around for long enough to have a track record. A lot of provider would rather offer a 100% guarantee than tell you what their actual performance has been. You can tell a lot about a provider by how they handle problems. Even if they only have one problem every five years, what they do is what people will remember. However, that's not the whole story. Perception plays a large role in this game. When a blizzard hits a town, and every coffee shop is closed, only a few people complain and generally there is no permanent damage to a businesses' reputation. Acts of God (or Mother Nature) are just that. However, if every other coffee shop is open, but your shop is closed because your coffee supplier didn't deliver on time, you have a bigger business problem. The problem for Internet businesses when they lose their Internet connection is it doesn't affect everyone. If 60 Hudson fell-over, and most of the East Coast Internet connectivity was lost for a few days, it would be bad. But it wouldn't really change anyone's market share because it would affect almost everyone. But if Northpoint falls over, you are just a dumb shmuck for choosing Northpoint because the competitor down the street is still up because they chose DSLwhatever. No one likse looking like a dumb shmuck, so you buy IBM or you multi-home, or do whatever. Then when it still fails, you can tell you boss you did everything humanly possible, and no one else could have done better.

1 0

Verio's NOC is closed?
by doug＠safeport.com 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Anyone know what is going on here? _____ Douglas Denault doug(a)safeport.com Voice: 301-469-8766 Fax: 301-469-0601

2 2

AS Leakage
by Marshall Eubanks 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Hello; In our BGP table, there are this morning the following AS's : AS 64610 : 1 prefixes : 1 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 64610 AS 64615 : 2 prefixes : 2 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 64615 AS 64616 : 3 prefixes : 3 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 64616 AS 65008 : 3 prefixes : 3 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 145 2200 65008 AS 65102 : 3 prefixes : 3 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 65102 AS 65209 : 12 prefixes : 12 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 65209 AS 65498 : 1 prefixes : 1 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 65498 In the MBGP table for multicast, there are AS 64580 : 9 prefixes : 9 prefixes supported : 5 hops : as path 1239 5511 2200 2074 64580 AS 65001 : 1 prefixes : 1 prefixes supported : 4 hops : as path 3300 8933 2200 65001 AS 65498 : 1 prefixes : 1 prefixes supported : 3 hops : as path 1239 209 65498 I thought that these AS's were not supposed to be advertised globally. Is this really a problem ? Is it worth the effort to track the sources of these down and try and get them to remove them ? Regards Marshall Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc. 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme(a)on-the-i.com http://www.on-the-i.com

10 11

gTLD Informational Message
by Brad Verd 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: Wednesday evening, the 4th of March, Verisign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for g.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set serving com/net/org. The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.5.6.30 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.42.93.30 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.26.92.30 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 192.31.80.30 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.41.162.30 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 213.177.194.5 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 207.200.81.69 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 202.153.114.101 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the old and new IP's for g.gtld-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 ---------------------------------------

2 1