- Test - lists.nanog.org

re: Anyone with a clue at CAIS.NET?
by Matt Levine 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

Roy, We're CAIS's largest colo customer (yeah..scary thought..shudder).. Lemme know what info you need and I can get it for you. Matt -- Matt Levine, CTO <mlevine(a)efront.com> eFront Media, Inc. - http://www.efront.com Phone: +1 714 428 8500 ext. 504 Fax : +1 949 203 2156 ICQ : 17080004

1 0

Anyone with a clue at CAIS.NET?
by Roy 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

Does anyone have a number of someone at CAIS with a clue? We are trying to garner information on an attack that seems to have originated in the CAIS address space. I have made several phone calls but I just keep getting switched between people. Roy Engehausen

1 0

RE: Internet metrics
by Schmiedt, Jamie 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

Just wanted to thank all of you that responded to my question. The links I received are very useful (well, accept for Dan G's. :) They are listed below. Thanks again. http://www.caida.org/ www.andovernews.com http://www.ksu.edu/Internet2/network.html http://www.miq.net/ http://www.gomeznetworks.com http://www.dslreports.com/stest/0 http://computingcentral.msn.com/topics/bandwidth/speedtest500.asp http://www.cable-modems.org/toolbox/speed_test/ http://www.2wire.com/bandwidth/bmresult.asp?kbps=898.3 http://support.midco.net/test/ -jamie -----Original Message----- From: Schmiedt, Jamie Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 4:02 PM To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: Internet metrics I am looking for websites that deal with bandwidth and performance metrics as they pertain to the Internet? Anything and everything goes. I need to get a snapshot in time of things like "the average speed of the Internet", the average size of e-mail messages, the average size of a web page, peering points and hosting facilities, current bottlenecks be they hardware, software or networks. Any cool links for this sorta info will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance -jamie

2 1

Internet performance measures compared to other industires
by Sean Donelan 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

I wonder if I'm sensitized to Internet problems in comparison to other industries. I checked a couple of other industries often given as examples of high uptimes, and found similar problems. Ameritech will compensate 150,000 customers who waited more than 48 hours for a repair, or more than 7 days past the installation due date since January 1 2000. Ameritech is under investigation in four other states for missed dates and repair problems. An e-merchant reports credit card fraud verification system nonfunctional 22 percent of the time. Mastercard and Visa didn't reply to press inquiries. NASDAQ reports 99.96% system availability since January 1 2000. AT&T, the only ISP I know publicly posting connection stats, reports 99% connect success last month.

2 1

Re: Network Availability Tool
by Toby_Williams＠enron.net 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

If you're looking for an on-net tool then one of the following might be OK www.entuity.com - currently make a LAN product but are developing for the WAN http://www.lucent-networkcare.com/software/vitalsuite/vitalnet/index.asp http://www.desktalk.com/ http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/wr2k/svmnv1/prodlit/slm_ds.htm Toby

1 0

RE: Who's peering at Ameritech?
by Jason Lixfeld 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

I appreciate the comments of those who have suggested that I check the RSNG. There is a difference in the total number of peers listed on the RSNG verses the number of peers listed on the AADS site. My question is wether the difference is simply due to the fact that not everyone peering at AADS is peering with the RSNG and all those who are listed on AADS' site are infact connected and exchanging traffic? -----Original Message----- From: Jason Lixfeld To: 'nanog(a)nanog.org' Sent: 12/3/00 9:46 PM Subject: Who's peering at Ameritech? For those of you who are peering at Ameritech, would it be possible to send me a list of AS' of all who you are peering with there? I'm trying to gather some traffic statistics to see if it's worth running an OC3 there from Toronto. Plugging the AS' into Flowscan should give me the number I need. If this question raises any eyebrows, does AADS have a route-server that I can peer with and grab the AS' for myself? Their site mentions a route-server in the list of peers, but it doesn't say if you can setup a peering session with it, so I figure maybe someone on the inside would know. Thx in advance. Regards, -- Jason A. Lixfeld Senior Network Engineer Look Communications Inc. -- jlixfeld(a)team.look.ca ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This email server is running an evaluation copy of the MailShield anti- spam software. Please contact your email administrator if you have any questions about this message. MailShield product info: www.mailshield.com

1 0

Who's peering at Ameritech?
by Jason Lixfeld 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

For those of you who are peering at Ameritech, would it be possible to send me a list of AS' of all who you are peering with there? I'm trying to gather some traffic statistics to see if it's worth running an OC3 there from Toronto. Plugging the AS' into Flowscan should give me the number I need. If this question raises any eyebrows, does AADS have a route-server that I can peer with and grab the AS' for myself? Their site mentions a route-server in the list of peers, but it doesn't say if you can setup a peering session with it, so I figure maybe someone on the inside would know. Thx in advance. Regards, -- Jason A. Lixfeld Senior Network Engineer Look Communications Inc. -- jlixfeld(a)team.look.ca

1 0

Re: pretty cool paper re "myth of Internet growth numbers"
by Andrew Odlyzko 03 Dec '00

03 Dec '00

Sean, Since you have have chosen to ignore kc's "meta-operational content warning" On Sat, 02 December 2000, k claffy wrote: > [meta-operational content warning. > followup thread probably belongs on some other list] > > andrew odlyzko's latest > http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/odlyzko/11_00odlyzko.htm I feel entitled to respond. First of all, your comments all appear to be based on the paper you cite, namely http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/high.network.cost.txt This is an entirely different paper on a different subject. (Moreover, just like the article kc cites, it is just a short overview of more detailed papers.) It is sort of like kc saying "Sean's new-born son is cute," and my responding "But his two-year old daughter is ugly." Either statement may be right or wrong, but there is little connection between them. Second, concerning the substance of your criticism, I think Andrew has some apples and oranges mixed together in some of his papers. For example, he compares the utilitization of telephone trunk circuits (33% busy) with corporate LANs (3-4% busy). But ignores the typical corporate PBX, which sits idle most of the night and weekend. I suspect if you compared the corporate LAN with the corporate PBX, the utilitization rates would be similar. And in most companies, the availability of good measurements for intra-PBX calling and intra-LAN usage would be hard to find. Of course, that would open the whole can of worms of why do companies buy their own PBX's instead of using Centrex service from the phone company? I do stand by the analysis of my papers. I do indeed mix apples and oranges, but that is inevitable in this context. In my 1998 paper with Kerry Coffman, "The size and growth rate of the Internet," we even say, to justify our efforts, that "While we cannot avoid comparing apples to oranges, we try not to compare apples to orange trees." However, the issues are definitely complex, and outside the scope of this mailing list. I would love to discuss this in greater detail with you, given your extensive knowledge of networks, as I think I could learn from such a discussion, but I would propose that we follow kc's warning and take this to a different forum. How about doing this through private email exchange? We can invite any members of this list who are interested in this issue to alert either one of us, and we will either cc them on the messages (if there are just a few), or set up a general short-term mailing list for the discussion. Would that be acceptable? Third, you write: But worst of all Andrew uses the *average* utilization, which is a poor way to measure utilization of data networks. Even utilization is a bit of a red herring because different absolute bandwidths. Networks (voice or data) are not designed using average utilization. Instead most designers use some type of peak utilization (95%, Mother's Day, etc). So what happens when a network gets near its peak utilization? With the voice network you get more busy signals. With the data network you get slower transfers. You appear to miss the point of the work. The aim of the analysis was to demonstrate that data networks are designed for and used for different purposes than the voice network, and that the commonly held notion that packet networks are superior to switched voice networks because they utilize transmission facilities more efficiently is just false. I am certainly not suggesting that average utilizations should be used in designing networks of any sort. Again, there is much more that can be said on this topic, but should not be said on this list. He also states the the traditional phone network continues to be more reliable than the Internet, which in my experience is an artifact of how the statistics are collected. If I called United Airlines' reservation number this year, I would think the telephone network reliability was pretty bad too. Instead the telephone network doesn't include end-to-end reachability in its reliability. But Internet measures such as Keynote do include end-to-end reachability. This is a debatable point which has been dealt with rather extensively on this list, so I will respond at greater length. I agree with much of what you say, but, lacking any good metric, still feel, based on my personal experience and other anecdotal evidence, that the claim about Internet's lower reliability is valid. As one bit of evidence, let me note that starting on Tuesday 12 days ago, and continuing through yesterday morning, my home connection (through a cable modem) was down each day from about 4:15 am to 5:30 am. The problem was finally fixed yesterday. (It's a long story having to do with the interaction of the VPN and the cable system.) Nothing like this has ever happened to me with voice phones, and this is definitely not the first problem of this nature. Having said all this, let me add that I do not think this in any way shows the superiority of the voice phone network to the Internet, any more than the higher utilization of transmission links does. I feel that reliability is often overrated, and that examples of cell phones as well as PC's running Windows show that people care more about other things. Andrew

2 1

RE: pretty cool paper re "myth of Internet growth numbers"
by Gregory Soo 03 Dec '00

03 Dec '00

-----Original Message----- From: CAnet-3-NEWS(a)canarie.ca [mailto:CAnet-3-NEWS@canarie.ca] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 2:36 PM Subject: Internet Growth: Myth and Reality, Use and Abuse For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE CA*net 3 Optical Internet program web site at http://www.canet3.net/news/news.html ------------------------------------------- [There has been considerable debate on the issue of Internet traffic growth. I have been guilty as any one of confusing the issue. But I think the following information will clarify some of the confusion. Very simply it is extremely rare when the offered load to the Internet doubles more than once very 7 months. But because of the classic N squared problem of network interconnection the actual network capacity must grow in capacity at a doubling rate of 3 to 4 months to accommodate this growth in offered load. --BSA] Actual Internet traffic growth rates of 100 percent per year are considerably less than the much-ballyhooed doubling every 3 or 4 months. But even these observed rates are still unprecedented and should be provoking new ways of planning. Andrew Odlyzko Andrew Odlyzko is Head, Mathematics and Cryptography Research Department, AT&T Labs - Research, Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA. Dr. Odlyzko has been writing about the evolution of the computing environment for a number of years. He last wrote for iMP in June 2000. http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/odlyzko/11_00odlyzko.htm >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 06:26:22 -0500 (EST) >From: mo(a)UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) >To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu >Subject: 100% per year, etc > >Dave, > >I see people still don't really understand the difference >between offered load (measured as gigabits injected into >the edge of the network) and network capacity (measured in >gigabit-route-miles of trunking). > >This is indeed somewhat subtle and possibly counter-intuitive. > >For offered load to double every year, network capacity >must double every 4 months or so, at least in our network >(UUNET). It is slowing down a some, but that's still pretty fast. > >This is actually a pretty simple result from graph theory, >once one gets the picture right (as are most results >from graph theory - grin). > >I admit it took me a while to get the picture right, >especially about how to explain what's going on. > >Consider an network of two nodes connected by one mile >of fiber. > >In this network, it's pretty clear that the number of >gigabits of offered load should be equal to the number of >gigabit-miles of trunking between the two nodes. > >Note that it's only the NUMBERS that are equal - the UNITS >of the numbers are different. One is gigabits/sec, the >other is (gigabits/sec)*miles. This means they can never >be *equal*, but the two numbers can grow together - maybe >even related by a constant of 1 mile, as in this case. > >Now consider a real network. > >The network is much more complex than two nodes with one >link, and each of those nodes is generating traffic which >can go to any arbitrary destination node on a >packet-by-packet basis. > >In North America alone, there are "35 NFL Cities" which >account for a significant fraction of the population >(people or computers, take your pick), but there are also >many more computers located other places who also wish to >have high-performance service. This means the trunking >must go a lot of places and be richly connected because... > >Every computer expects to reach every other computer with >nearly equal quality. While Warhole's Theorem is still >relevant, on the Internet you are famous for 15 milliseconds, >so who is famous changes very quickly. > >The resulting traffic slosh can be very large and the >network trunking capacity (gigabit-route-miles) better >be in place to handle it or Bad Things(TM) happen. > >The result is that for UUNET's network (I can't speak for >others) to handle the 100% increase in gigabit/sec offered >load over 12 months, the gigabits/sec-route-miles capacity >of the network must increase 100% about every 4 months. >Again, note the difference in the units of those two >numbers. > >The planning problem for telephony networks is rather different >because the dynamics of telephone calls are so much slower >and the data rate required is perfectly predictable. > >I dare say that if 800 numbers were routinely "SlashDotted", >the outlook of voice network planners would be rather different, >and that's ignoring the huge difference in bit-mass moved >in the two cases. > >The deep intuition about network growth dynamics developed >over the years with voice networks simply does not yeild >workable results when applied to very large data networks >which exhibit huge dynamic ranges of traffic slosh and the >astounding doubling of offered load every year. (and this >is still the case even given how few people currently enjoy >"broadband" access) > >So the statements about growth of offered load and growth of network >capacity (no matter how much "ballyhooed") are not inconsistent. >They are taking about two different but highly interrelated things. > > cheers, > -mo > >======================== >Michael D. O'Dell >Senior Vice President, Chief Scientist >UUNET - the Worldcom Internet Company >Room E1-3-117 >22001 Loudon County Parkway >Ashburn, VA 20147 >Voice: +1-703-886-5890 >Fax: +1-703-886-5806 >Email: mo(a)uu.net For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ ------------------------------------- These news items and comments are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the CANARIE board or management. Bill St. Arnaud Senior Director Network Projects CANARIE bill.st.arnaud(a)canarie.ca -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 8:05 AM To: amo(a)research.att.com Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: pretty cool paper re "myth of Internet growth numbers" On Sun, 03 December 2000, Andrew Odlyzko wrote: > Since you have have chosen to ignore kc's "meta-operational content > warning" > > On Sat, 02 December 2000, k claffy wrote: > > [meta-operational content warning. > > followup thread probably belongs on some other list] > > > > andrew odlyzko's latest > > http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/odlyzko/11_00odlyzko.htm > > I feel entitled to respond. > > First of all, your comments all appear to be based on the paper you > cite, namely > > http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/high.network.cost.txt > > This is an entirely different paper on a different subject. (Moreover, > just like the article kc cites, it is just a short overview of more > detailed papers.) It is sort of like kc saying "Sean's new-born son > is cute," and my responding "But his two-year old daughter is ugly." > Either statement may be right or wrong, but there is little connection > between them. I skipped over that paper because the basic topic in your paper "Myth of Internet growth Numbers" was covered extensively on this list when the "doubling every 90 days" number was first published a couple of years ago. I think the original source was traced back to a comment made by Mike O'Dell at UUNET. If I recall the conclusion at the time was, at best, the comment was taken very much out of context. You point out that politicians and venture capitalists continue to cite the number to support their projects. Ok, I suppose someone had to say the emperor isn't wearing clothes. But I thought you had some more interesting ideas in the other papers. I think the growth claim is a bit like the last place television channel announcing "they have the fastest growing newscast." It is much easier to double a small number than a large number. But eventually you run out of new viewers. The interesting question isn't why is the Internet acting like a Ponzi scheme. The interesting question is when will the Internet growth curve change from going straight up to an S-shaped curve? Every once in a while, someone will plot the Internet growth curve against the television growth curve, FM radio growth curve, CD player growth curve, etc. The problem is we can't compare them yet, because we don't know where the bend in the Internet growth curve is, yet. So, does you data show the knee was in 1995-1996? Or are we still on the exponential part of the curve? If we are past the knee, its bad news for all the carriers, new and old, since stock price is mostly based on future growth expectation.

1 0

Facts, Statistics and Urban Legends from the backhoe convention
by Sean Donelan 03 Dec '00

03 Dec '00

A brief review of tidbits from the backhoe convention, aka underground damage prevention conference. These folks take their marking paint very seriously. I didn't know how many different types of orange paint existed before. A review of 582 damage incidents caused by excavator error resulted in an average cost to the excavator of $1,488 per incident. It is often less expensive for the excavator to dig through the utilities than around them. In one court case, the excavator's president testified that it was his company's standard practice to ignore OSHA regulations, ANSI standards, and guidelines set out in Bell South brochures and to always excavate with mechanized equipment directly over the orange paint marks showing the location of underground telecommunications facilities. He further testified that his company averaged one and one-half cable cuts a month, and considered damging underground facilities as simple a cost of doing business. My questions: If he always dug directly over the orange paint marks, why was the locate so poor he only hit a cable once ever month and a half? Directional drilling has resulted in a dramatic increase in damage to underground facilities. The US Department of Transportation has a safety study published in 1999. AT&T has developed a system for monitoring the drillhead called DrillCheck, and is licensing it for use by others. AT&T receives 3,000,000 cable locate requests per year. Due to competiton AT&T has stopped its flying route survellience. AT&T found stopping the fly-overs didn't affect the number of cable cuts. MCI/Worldcom has found one of its most effective tools is handing out $2 hats and other trinkets to railway workers and excavators. Hats appear to serve the same purpose as T-shirts for the Internet. Sprint estimates the cost to repair a single cable cut between $50,000 to $65,000. Loss of Use costs may be over $200,000. In 1995 cable cuts affected 32 air traffic control centers according to the NTSB. One-call centers are operating in 49 states and District of Colombia. Kiewett/Level 3 reported they averaged about 5.5 miles of installed fiber duct per utility strike. Their best run was 10 miles per strike, their worst performance was 3.77 miles per strike. The $350 million judgement against Qwest was a big topic of discussion. The National Telecommunication Damage Prevention Council (www.ntdpc.com) was giving out videotapes of the new "Dig Safely" campaign. They've decided the "No Digging" symbole (the backhoe and shovel with the red No symbole) was a bad idea. The new campaign is focusing on educating excavators on how to "Dig Safely" instead of stopping them from doing their work. Although there are no hard numbers, parallel builds by other carriers appeared to be the major source of cable cuts among the long-distance fiber carriers. Several of the other carriers were hoping one of the more recent entrants into the long distance business would finish their build soon, so they would stop cutting other carriers. Perhaps more important, since it is often the utilities themselves who hire the excavators, several of them have now realized it is in their own best interest not to always use the low-bidder. They are now keeping track of indvidual contractors performance, including damage to other utilities, as part of their bid and contract evaluation. Several of the major carriers are proposing model state legislation, which among several things would include the name of the project owner on the dig permit and one-call notification.

1 0