- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Nuclear power for POPs
by Rodney Joffe 09 Aug '97

09 Aug '97

H'mmmm I wonder if we might bid on the construction portion... we have a little experience :-) Rodney Joffe Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net > -----Original Message----- > From: John Curran [SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 1997 1:09 PM > To: William Duncanson > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Nuclear power for POPs > >Sign me up! I want one of these in my back yard. I figure I could > >probably run the whole block off of one of these. > > It may soon be necessary to include one of these in each POP, > given notable vendors increasing power demands... > > Chris, can you do 23" open rack designs? > > ;-) > /John > >

2 1

Re: BBN (GTE) Suffers another major power problem.
by Matthew James Gering 09 Aug '97

09 Aug '97

>As more and more companies come to rely on the Internet like they rely on >the PSTN, we will be expected to have bomb-resistant networks. (not >bomb-proof, mind you), and we will have to be compensated for this level >of redundancy. No. People who need an extremely high level of fault taulerance can build it into their own network without every link in the public network maintaining that same level. You already have self-healing SONET, at an added cost, I don't think we'll need to step beyond that for normal commercial usage. Iraq did not have such a high level of communications infrastructure, yet we could not block their access to their TCP/IP network nor the Internet. There is a big difference between the needs and requirements of fault taulerant uninterupted service and catastrophe/emergency service. The latter you can get by POTS, radio, sattelite, etc, and combinations there of. Hell, a big APC and 19" sattelite dish can go along way for emergency service. On a side note, remember a number of years ago when they (US) where selling decommisioned nuclear silo bases (bomb /proof/, 300+ feet underground). That could make an awesome co-lo facility ;-). Matt

1 0

Just a word
by Scott Vandiver 09 Aug '97

09 Aug '97

Ummm to clear something up, BBN's (GTE) NOC did not go down during the power loss to the Cambridge area. We are fed directly through a power transform station that is less then 1/4 mile from the NOC. What did go down was the POP which is not located at the same place as the NOC. Thank You -- End Of Line \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // (/ @ @ /) ___oOOo-(_)-oOOo____________________________________________________ Scott Vandiver | Office : (617) 873-6399 Network Analysis | N.O.C. : (800) 632-7638 BBN Planet | Fax : (617) 873-5508 150 CambridgePark Drive | Hours : 12:00 AM - 8:00 AM EST Cambridge, MA 02140 | Email : svandive(a)bbnplanet.com | ___________Oooo.____________________________________________________ .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / Make it idiot proof and somebody \ ( (_/ will make a better idiot. \_)

1 0

Re: Backup Power Schemes
by Jerry Scharf 09 Aug '97

09 Aug '97

wb8foz(a)nrk.com said: > Gas Turbine. Not very fuel-efficient, but much less routine maint > than Diesels. Also smaller. > variations: Propane fuel, Natural Gas For those of you who have never had the pleasure of working with turbines, they are not something you would want to be near humans who still want their hearing. At about .5MW load, they have a marked similarity to a jet plane taking off (no surprise.) Fine for out of the way places or low class commercial areas, but probably not something that would want to be on a slab in downtown San Jose or Palo Alto. Diesel is much quieter and easier to muffle. But if you need a lot of power, natural gas turbines get really big, and the odds of a turbine starting are better. I like turbines, but almost never find a place to put them. (then again, I still like MG sets.) jerry

2 1

RE: BBN (GTE) Suffers another major power problem.
by Rodney Joffe 09 Aug '97

09 Aug '97

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jonah Yokubaitis [SMTP:barron@texas.net] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 1997 2:08 PM > To: Nathan Stratton > Cc: Matthew White; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: BBN (GTE) Suffers another major power problem. > > > Incorrect. Stop using AC equipment in your pops. Use DC equipment and > get a _good_ DC Powerplant. Every carrier Class4/5 switchroom usually > has 10-20,0000 AMP/hours of standby power. 1 DSC or Nortel switch > sucks _quite_ a bit more power than even the largest of superpops. > Every carrier has _at least_ 4hours of battery plant (most have 8-12). > Relying on generators is a _bad_ idea. > > Its not hard to have 4-12hours of standby battery plant. > > Lucent/Lorain/Peco2 all make rather nice rectifiers, and > C&D/Lucent/GDB all make some nice vented batteries. By going DC you > also don't get hit with the inefficiencies of AC --> DC --> AC --> DC. > > You can bet that MCI/Sprint don't have a piece of AC equipment in > their facilities and most likely are laughing their asses off right > now. > Not quite as simple Jonah.... CO equipment is designed for 48v for many reasons. It's also designed to deal with concrete floors, inefficient HVAC, dust, etc. Unfortunately, a modern megapop consists of a lot of interesting equipment that doesn't come in 48v DC versions. Alpha 8400s, Large SGIs, and server like things (yeah, I know, there are companies who make retrofit kits for some of them, but they're not standard). The real issue is planning... MAE E and MAE W *weren't* designed for the things that MFS is stuffing in them. Most of the other pops have the same problem. It *is* possible to design a facility that is run off an inverter permanently, which is connected to a UPS, which is connected to utility power, and to a diesel generator, which *is* able to cope with extended failures of _utility power_ without affecting the equipment (routers, switches, modems, and servers) at all. And I think the modern facilities will be built that way. 4-12 hours of batteries is serious when you're talking about a large hosting facility. Sprint/MCI may be laughing, but they're haveing to scramble to build POPs capable of supporting server farms because they can't do that now. And another thing, batteries or not, *no-one* can easily survive a catastrophic event like a fire, an explosion, or even the wires that got eaten in BBNs Stanford center last year. (Didn't AT&T hose most of Chicago's loop area a few years ago, for more than a *week*?) I bet they had DC in their vault. Didn't help them much... Rodney Joffe Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net

3 3

BBN (GTE) Suffers another major power problem.
by Patrick J. Chicas 09 Aug '97

09 Aug '97

The BBN Cambridge POP is "down and out" after a nearby manhole fire cut power to the building housing the POP. -Where is the generator backup?

11 16

Interesting Spam
by Hagai Yardeny 09 Aug '97

09 Aug '97

Hello, i have been working on a project called http://www.netiqette.net we have a search engine there where we document spams and their headers http://www.netiquette.net/cgi-bin/neti/spam/j.pl This is a note we got a few days ago. Enjoy HY

3 3

Nuclear power for POPs
by John Curran 08 Aug '97

08 Aug '97

At 14:50 8/8/97, William Duncanson wrote: >> I'll be more than happy to leverage my experience from my Nuclear >> Engineering days to help Internet companies plan for these redundant >> power plants. Each load of fuel would be good for about 18 to 24 >> months of sustained operation, and we could even design it so that >> should it experience an explosion, there is no confusion or expectation >> on the performance and viability of colocated and nearby equipment. >> >> Chris >> >Sign me up! I want one of these in my back yard. I figure I could >probably run the whole block off of one of these. It may soon be necessary to include one of these in each POP, given notable vendors increasing power demands... Chris, can you do 23" open rack designs? ;-) /John

4 3

Re: BBN (GTE) Suffers another major power problem.
by Brian Hayes 08 Aug '97

08 Aug '97

At 12:21 PM -0500 on 97-8-8, Robert T. Nelson wrote: > As more and more companies come to rely on the Internet like they rely on > the PSTN, we will be expected to have bomb-resistant networks. (not > bomb-proof, mind you), and we will have to be compensated for this level > of redundancy. This will day will come as we place more financial > transactions on the 'Net. Ironically, one of the categories of end-users who really need dependable and uninterrupted net service right now are the electric power companies. They are required under federal mandate to conduct all their power-brokering business over the public networks. In other words, when Northeast Utilities sells some megawatts to Con Ed, the transaction has to be scheduled on the Internet. So we're set up for a situation where a failure of the power grid brings down a part of the Net, and the Net outage impedes restoration of the power grid. ------------------------------------------------------ Brian Hayes bhayes(a)amsci.org

1 0

RE: Nuclear power for POPs
by Rodney Joffe 08 Aug '97

08 Aug '97

Errrrr... I think that Lothberg has us all beat there, at least he has the makings of one..... > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean M. Doran [SMTP:smd@clock.org] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 1997 2:26 PM > To: caesar(a)psa.pencom.com; jcurran(a)bbnplanet.com; rjoffe(a)genuity.net > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Nuclear power for POPs > > Excuse me for being rude, but none of this will be interesting > until the first commercial ISP to be nuclear *armed*, not powered. > > A new concept in escalating tickets... > > Sean. > > Rodney Joffe Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net

1 0