- Test - lists.nanog.org

OT: pagers/phones
by Charles Sprickman 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Hi, Is anyone using TAP-based paging software with any of the major two-way pager companies or any cell phones that have paging features? Specifically we were looking at PageMart 2-ways, SprintPCS, and Nextel. Any other suggestions are more than welcome. The only thing we are NOT interested in is any email-based paging (doesn't work too well if the internet is 'broken'). Qpage.org lists all three of those providers as having a TAP number, but they all deny any knowledge of such a thing. We are dropping PageNet, as they have no unlimited plans, yanked service without notice, and charge $.25/page past the limit. Thanks in advance, and apologies if this is not an "operational" issue, Charles | Charles Sprickman | Internet Channel | INCH System Administration Team | (212)243-5200 | spork(a)inch.com | access(a)inch.com

7 6

Re: Packet Loss
by Steven M. Bellovin 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

In message <200012142041.eBEKf0CW232932(a)black-ice.cc.vt.edu>, Valdis.Kletnieks@ vt.edu writes: > >--==_Exmh_1384746784P >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:21:42 PST, Roeland Meyer <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com> said: >> > From: Scott Bradner [mailto:sob@harvard.edu] >> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 10:52 AM >> > >> > > Can we call on the Avian Carrier RFC here? Packet Loss may >> > take on a whole >> > > new meaning here... > >At first reading, I saw 'Avian Carrier KFC'. > >> Never under-estimate the bandwidth of a mini-van filled with DLT tapes, on >> the freeway at 65 mph. >> - updated to current - rmeyer - original author unknown > >Andy Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks", if I remember correctly. *Much* older -- I first heard it in 1969, and I don't think it was orginal then... --Steve Bellovin

3 2

RE: Packet Loss
by Roeland Meyer 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 1:14 PM > >> Never under-estimate the bandwidth of a mini-van filled > with DLT tapes, on > >> the freeway at 65 mph. > >> - updated to current - rmeyer - original author unknown > > > >Andy Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks", if I remember correctly. > > *Much* older -- I first heard it in 1969, and I don't think it was > orginal then... I know for certain that it dates back to the pain-frame daze and originally refered to 9600 baud open-reel tape. It was a true anacdote involving a chevy impala stationwagon and they needed to get a massive amount of IBM 360 data, from somewhere in Los Angeles to Sacramento. One of the alternatives was unreliable 300 baud links (1200 baud wouldn't work for some reason). They chose to use the chevy, they beat the time by days. I was an MTS-III, at /HAC/C&DP/LB (pre-GM), when I heard it the first time. I am amazed that, that far back (20 years), I remember that much detail. The context I heard it in was that we had a similar problem getting some data from behind the "cactus curtain", in Tuscon, AZ. If you want to transfer a multi-TB database, a short distance, it still holds true.

1 0

Kysi Ferul Plague
by Karyn Ulriksen 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Is anybody else being plagued my a kysi ferul [redwingblakburdz(a)yahoo.com]? This person apparently latched onto my name thru the Nanog list. Any feedback should be offlist so we aren't petting it's ego... Thanx --------------------------------------------------------------------- Best regards, Karyn Ulriksen Director of Network Operations PublicHost, A SiteStream Company 22 Mauchly, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92618 USA Phone: (949) 743-2000 email: kulriksen(a)publichost.com URL: http://www.publichost.com ===========================================

1 0

Re: Packet Loss
by Tony Rall 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

> I'll speculate that it occurs when packets destined for a destination do > not get there. Most people see it via dropped ping packets.. What ping really tells you is that either the packets from A to B are being lost or those from B to A are being lost. From the information that ping presents there is no way to know which direction (and the routing may well be asymmetric) is choking, nor if the problem is at one of the end points. While I really like to use pings (with at least 100 samples) for testing round trip packet loss, there are situations where it will give incorrect results. If the packet loss is data, packet size, or protocol dependent, ping probably won't tell you about the performance to be expected for the application that you're really interested in. On top of that, some systems will filter or throttle ICMP - this really distorts the results. Tony Rall

2 1

RE: Packet Loss
by Scott Bradner 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

> Can we call on the Avian Carrier RFC here? Packet Loss may take on a whole > new meaning here... especially for the bulk transfer mode

1 0

RE: Packet Loss
by Karyn Ulriksen 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Isn't there something in RFC 1149 or RFC 2549 about this? Maybe another update to these RFC will be required. K Reference: http://www.valkaryn.net/rfc/1149.txt http://www.valkaryn.net/rfc/2549.txt > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Rall [mailto:trall@almaden.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:50 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Packet Loss > > > > > > I'll speculate that it occurs when packets destined for a > destination do > > not get there. Most people see it via dropped ping packets.. > > What ping really tells you is that either the packets from A > to B are being > lost or those from B to A are being lost. From the > information that ping > presents there is no way to know which direction (and the > routing may well > be asymmetric) is choking, nor if the problem is at one of > the end points. > > While I really like to use pings (with at least 100 samples) > for testing > round trip packet loss, there are situations where it will > give incorrect > results. If the packet loss is data, packet size, or > protocol dependent, > ping probably won't tell you about the performance to be > expected for the > application that you're really interested in. On top of > that, some systems > will filter or throttle ICMP - this really distorts the results. > > Tony Rall > >

1 0

RE: Packet Loss
by Roeland Meyer 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:patrick@cybernothing.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 10:01 AM > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > > > strict definition. > > > > 2628 > > > ^7 > > > > > > <blush> > > > > i can't seem to find the proper decoder-ring so i can't > decode your comment. > > this one's a bit too terse even for you. a few more hints ... pls? > > RFC 2678 thx, got it!

1 0

RE: Packet Loss
by Roeland Meyer 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:30 AM > > > > Does anyone have a good definition of packet loss? If so, > please send me > > > the appropriate verbiage. I cannot seem to articulate a > strict definition. > > 2628 > ^7 > > <blush> i can't seem to find the proper decoder-ring so i can't decode your comment. this one's a bit too terse even for you. a few more hints ... pls?

2 1

RE: Packet Loss
by Karyn Ulriksen 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Can we call on the Avian Carrier RFC here? Packet Loss may take on a whole new meaning here... K (sorry, couldn't resist) > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark E. Perkins [mailto:meperkins@att.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:42 AM > To: Randy Bush; Charles Smith > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Packet Loss > > > > Perhaps you mean 2680? (As in RFC) > > --On Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:20 PM +0000 Randy Bush > <randy(a)psg.com> > wrote: > > > > >> Does anyone have a good definition of packet loss? If so, > please send me > >> the appropriate verbiage. I cannot seem to articulate a strict > >> definition. > > > > 2628 > > > > > > >

1 0