- Test - lists.nanog.org

root nameservers broken again?
by Taner Halicioglu 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

bleh... is it me, or are the root nameservers hosed again? e.g.... ;; QUESTIONS: ;; 1.1.251.206.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: IN-ADDR.ARPA. 86400 SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET. ( 1997071600 ; serial 10800 ; refresh (3 hours) 900 ; retry (15 mins) 604800 ; expire (7 days) 86400 ) ; minimum (1 day) ;; Total query time: 90 msec ;; FROM: coredump to SERVER: a.root-servers.net 198.41.0.4 looks like this for [a-d].root.servers.net... e,f,g look ok (as far as I can tell)... -Taner -- D. Taner Halicioglu taner(a)isi.net Programmer/Engineer/Sysadmin ISI / GlobalCenter Voice: +1 408 543 0313 Fax: +1 408 541 9878 PGP Fingerprint: 65 0D 03 A8 26 21 6D B8 23 3A D6 67 23 6E C0 36

4 3

BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Matthew Pearson 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

At 11:59am today WorldCom lost 6 major ATM trunks from St. Louis to L.A. So as you can imagine... MANY MANY ISPs are in some state of down. Just letting you know. No time estimate to repair has been made.

7 11

RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Chris Fairbanks 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

Doesn't Sprint stand for Southern Pacific Railroad INTernational? Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Nikos Mouat [SMTP:nikm@ixa.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 4:19 PM > To: Scott Landman > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom > > > If you're suggesting that Qwest is the only carrier using railroad > right > of ways I suggest you take a closer look at those little orange posts > running along the side of train tracks.. I've seen MCI, Worldcom, > AT&T, > sprint and others running along the same tracks from Seattle to > Portland. > > nm > > On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Scott Landman wrote: > > > If fibers being cut is the culprit here, does going with a supplier > like > > Qwest make sense because their fibers are running down railroad > right of > > ways and, therefore, should be less succeptible to a backhoe digging > where > > it shouldn't be? Or are you looking at other, more secure mediums > for the > > bulk of your traffic?

4 3

RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by pat＠tandem.com 17 Jul '97

17 Jul '97

> I believe new statistics for 1996 have just been released, but I don't > have those numbers handy at the moment. Try www.fcc.gov, and look for a > report called "Fiber Deployment Update" or somesuch. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/infra.html -pat -- Patrick Mulrooney Tandem Computers

1 0

RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Peter Leppik 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

At the end of 1995, according the the FCC, the major interexchange carriers had the following amounts of fiber deployed: Carrier Route Miles Fiber Miles AT&T 46,083 1,417,600 MCI 23,160 567,400 Sprint 22,996 467,200 WorldCom 11,127 266,200 Other 4,223 58,900 I believe new statistics for 1996 have just been released, but I don't have those numbers handy at the moment. Try www.fcc.gov, and look for a report called "Fiber Deployment Update" or somesuch. Qwest is a relative newcomer (just went public) which has been building out their own fiber network with the intent of reselling it to other carriers. Qwest also bought a boatload of fiber from Williams Pipeline Co. some time ago, and signed a contract with Williams which locked Williams out of the business of deploying new fiber until early 1998 (Williams runs fiber through unused oil and gas pipelines, having discovered that fiber optics is more of a growth industry than schlepping around fermented dinosaurs). Regards, -Peter >-----Original Message----- >From: Charles Sprickman [SMTP:spork@inch.com] >Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:19 PM >To: Scott Landman >Cc: nathan(a)netrail.net; bnite(a)tremere.ios.com; mpearson(a)games-online.com; >nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom > >On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Scott Landman wrote: > >> If fibers being cut is the culprit here, does going with a supplier like >> Qwest make sense because their fibers are running down railroad right of > >I was under the impression that there was one fiber giant that actually >owns its own fiber, and that its name is AT&T... Who is Qwest??? > >Anyone have any stats on how much MCI, Sprint, WCom actually own? > >Charles > >~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ >Charles Sprickman Internet Channel >INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 >spork(a)inch.com access(a)inch.com > > > >

1 0

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Results
by jrg＠blodwen.demon.co.uk 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

c-huegen(a)quadrunner.com (Craig A. Huegen) writes: > It's a rough measurement, and if you'd go so far as to assign a 20% error > margin, you'd stillsee that a web server still owns a *significant* piece > of the click-to-data time, over 50%. Especially if it's using the particularly sub-optimal (aka 'broken') network stack that a very popular server operating system has. In fact, some recent measurements of mine show a large variance even for a connection setup on a local network depending upon what IP stacks are involved: varying between 0.39s and 0.007s. (Unsurprisingly the broken stack referred to above works quite well with itself, and not too bad with an earlier OS from the same company - if I didn't know better I might believe that they only tested with their own systems.) (this isn't really operational so if you want names let me know privately. Perhaps someone out there has some clout.) James.

1 0

RE: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by Steve Martin 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

Thank you. BIFF is was! -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Stratton [SMTP:nathan@netrail.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 10:56 AM To: Scott Landman Cc: bnite(a)tremere.ios.com; mpearson(a)games-online.com; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom Fiber cut, it is back up now. Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. Fax (404)522-1939 230 Peachtree Suite 500 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Atlanta, GA 30303 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. - Psalm 33:16 On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Scott Landman wrote: > > > > > Does anyone have any idea what percentage of their total capacity was lost? > Also, is this the result of equipment failure or cut fiber? > > >

1 0

Re: Mae-West
by Sean M. Doran 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

Not that I would suggest using them over the whole nanog list, but, um, do the mae-west-techs(a)uu.net (or was it mae-west@ and cix-techs@... i forget) list and its siblings still work? Sean.

2 1

Alternic takes over Internic traffic
by Hank Nussbacher 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,12382,00.html

6 7

Re: BOOM! there goes WorldCom
by rbuchals＠hotmail.com 16 Jul '97

16 Jul '97

>From: "Sean M. Doran" <smd(a)clock.org> > >What?! But wait, just a day ago, a UUNET engineer was going on >about how ATM is good because it helps prevent failures at the IP layer... That only works when there's enough reserve bandwidth out there in the ATM 'cloud' to reroute failed PVCs. You'd think that they would diversely route their ATM trunks. Maybe they turned auto-reroute off... -rb ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0