- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
by salo＠msc.edu 25 Oct '96

25 Oct '96

I read with great interest the "Ungodly packet loss rates" thread. It appears that an Internet user did a reasonably good job of articulating his frustration with the quality of Internet service he was receiving. The response from the nanog list was generally unsympathetic, (with a very few notable exceptions such as Kent, Curtis and Tony). The user was told that his mail was "inappropriate" and was even called a "whiner" and told to "shut up," (comments which apparently were not considered inappropriate). I had a couple of thoughts about this thread: o If I were writing an Internet-II proposal, I would consider using this thread to bolster my case that my community of interest needs an Internet VPN such as Internet-II because the Internet operations community is unreceptive to complaints about the service I am receiving. o If I were reviewing Internet-II proposals, I might hope that I got done with my reviews before, for example, a University president sent mail to nanog complaining about the Internet service his or her university was receiving. -tjs

1 0

Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
by Kent W. England 25 Oct '96

25 Oct '96

At 05:34 PM 22-10-96 -0400, John Curran wrote: > >One can certainly make the argument that running large traffic >flows through shared interconnects is bad engineering Yes, and I think the operative word is "shared" as in "shared access media". --Kent ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks 1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400 Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe(a)6SigmaNets.com Experienced Internet Consulting ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~

3 2

Re: Internet provider credibility - should it matter to the industry as a whole?
by James D. Butt 'J.D.' 25 Oct '96

25 Oct '96

Can you please limit your postings to like one or mabey 2 lists and not like 5! I am sorry that I am replying to all of the lists that you posted to, but I feel that my message should go every where you sent your message. Also I would assume that this release was done by some marketing person at ALLTEL....I would not want to find out what percent of press releases have inaccuricies such as this one and who knows it might be all true they might have 700 ISP customers???? As for the part about the routing table well it is sorta scary and could have been left out.... > I'd like to raise the question of the extent to which, amidst all the > internet hype, the credibility of internet services providers in their > public statements should matter. What follows is a notable case in point > of a provider that just a year ago said that, instead of cooperation, the > internet needed lawyers, and promised to use lawyers to whip the internet > into shape. What if anything should anyone in the industry do about the > following???? Gordon your posts make me angry some times! Be descent. Yah lets sue AGIS for a bad press release! If you go and sue all of the newspapers ect. ect. for inaccuracy's ect. Just so that I know other than peter saying many months ago about the whole lawyers thing, and that you and most of AGIS do not get along, what else has AGIS done to you? Did you lose many teeth in fights during grade school? You are not a AGIS customer. Yet you will trash them every chance you get. "SLANDER!" You make me think about the word "credibility". "The COOK Report on Internet" = National Inquirer On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Gordon Cook wrote: > I'd like to raise the question of the extent to which, amidst all the > internet hype, the credibility of internet services providers in their > public statements should matter. What follows is a notable case in point > of a provider that just a year ago said that, instead of cooperation, the > internet needed lawyers, and promised to use lawyers to whip the internet > into shape. What if anything should anyone in the industry do about the > following???? > > >From a press release on the AGIS web server > http://www.agis.net/press17.htm: > > Press release: Little Rock, AR: October 23, 1996-- ALLTEL Corporation will > invest **up to** $12.5 million and become a minority investor in Apex > Global Information Services, Inc. (AGIS), one of only six global providers > of Internet access, Joe T. Ford, chairman and CEO of ALLTEL, has > announced. [Cook: emphasis added.] > > AGIS is currently serving more than 200 cities in the United States with > points of presence (POPs) for Internet access, and has dedicated service > available in almost 50 countries. In addition, the company provides > backbone services to more than 700 of the estimated 3000 Internet service > providers (ISPs) around the world. > > Cook: 700 isps? Gosh. That's impressive. Anyone got any data on when they > overtook MCI, Sprint, and UUNET in market share? Leased line access to > almost 50 countries round the world? Any one seen the map of their global > network? Anyone got a list of their foreign pops? Or are they claiming > LDDS lines and POPs in this country and abroad as though they (AGIS) owned > them all??? > > Press release: "This venture is an investment by ALLTEL in the > communications link of the future," Ford continued. "ALLTEL is making this > investment because AGIS is one of only six global providers of Internet > access. > > Cook: six global providers: Hmmm. Might they be referring to Sprint, AGIS > UUNET, PSI, MCI, and ANS? The so called gang or club of six that a year > ago were the exclusive direct peers at all the major exchanges? If they > are, then, by process of elimnation, BBN is not a global provider -which I > think is news to BBN, nor is AT&T, nor is Advantis, nor is Compuserve, nor > are a lot of other major players with more than a fresh12.5 million behind > them. Gee. I wonder if BBN realizes that AGIS has relegated it to second > rank status? > > Or perhaps they are referring to those global providers who are beginning > to move most of their traffic through private inter connects - and in so > doing are becoming a new internet apex? In this case they are not even one > of the five let alone six. Here the five are MCI, Sprint, BBN, UUNET and > ANS. I have been talking to a lot of sources, none of which is aware of > AGIS having any private Interconnects with these five. > > Press release: It is these providers that have management control of the > Internet routing tables, which are the directories that identify the > location of all Internet users. > > Cook: An enormously inaccurate statement. I would surmise that if any six > providers had the kind of control being talked about, there would have > been a brouhaha on mail lists worse than that directed against NSI, and > that there would be anti-trust action under way. Of course they also tell > you how to get to other routers and not a thing about the location of the > several tens of millions of individual internet users. > > Of course this is a press release and those who place too great a trust in > the overall accuracy of press releases are likely to be disappointed. In > my opinion however, the general cluelessness displayed by this press > release reaches new heights. It leaves me to surmise that the folk at > ALLTEL know not a lot about the internet. It would be interesting to > review the due dilligence that was excercised in putting this agreement > together. For example did anyone at ALLTELL ask for archives of > agislist(a)interstice.com which was started in January by agis customers > complaining about agis service? A very recent post from this mail list > follows. > > Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT) > From: Veggy Vinny <richardc(a)CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> > To: agislist(a)inter2.interstice.com > Subject: Hi > > Hi everyone, > > My name is Vince Poy, and I'm the Unix Networking Operations > person for GaiaNet.Net located in Beverly Hills, California connected to > PBI.Net which uses AGIS.Net, we've been having major problems with lag > with AGIS.Net and was wondering if anyone else can share their > experiences... > > Press release: concluding with a flourish: AGIS provides Internet access > to millions of users via an extensive customer base of RBOCs, content > providers, large corporations and ISPs. > > Cook: it would be entertaining to see how they derived these figures. > > And from nanog today we heard: > > Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:25:40 -0400 (EDT) > From: JDF <lart(a)cais.net> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Cc: agislist(a)interstice.com, Ron Burleson <burleson(a)cais.net> > Subject: Inter-provider relations > > > Interesting speech from Peter Kline at NANOG today...it seems that > AGIS's peering requirements are now so strict that AGIS today would not > peer with AGIS of only a few months ago. > Then there's Peter's comment to Ron Burleson, Cheif Operating > Officer of CAIS Internet (some of you know that CAIS had a very good > relationship with Net99, which continued for a while under AGIS.) "Ron, > we're going to squish you like a bug." > Peter is doing wonders for inter-provider relations. What do > y'all say that the rest of us follow the older, more friendly model, > instead of trying to kill each other? > Sure, a lot of us are in competition. From today's speech, it > seems that AGIS is is more competition than the rest of us. > But personally, if I were a small or mid-size provider, I'd rather > buy service from somebody that I've seen to be in /friendly/ competition > with their peers -- that way, once I got big enough to strike out on my > own, I could stay friendly with my old provider on a peer instead of a > customer level. This was the intention with the Net99 deal, back when > Net99 was known as "the backbone that doesn't suck." > > Back to the point -- like it or not, we all rely on each other and > each others' networks to make the Internet happen. > We can follow the AGIS model and cut each others' throats until we > really are just a bunch of autonomous systems with the occasional path > between, or we can interconnect -- network, to use a more laoded term. > I think we should be a network. > > (Please note that while I am speaking only for myself, CAIS's > business plan is more on the friendly side.) > > > > > > ************************************************************************ > The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://pobox.com/cook/ > Internet: cook(a)cookreport.com For case study of MercerNet & > TIIAP induced harm to local community http://pobox.com/cook/mercernet.html > ************************************************************************ > > > > ============================== ISP Mailing List ============================== > Email ``unsubscribe'' to inet-access-request(a)earth.com to be removed. > Remove headers and signatures from quoted text. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- James D. Butt | voice 319.557.8463 Network Engineer | fax 319.557.9771 MidWest Communications, Inc. | pager 319.557.6347 241 Main St. | noc(a)mwci.net Dubuque, IA 52001 | email jbutt(a)mwci.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Lets fight against continental drift!" "I used up all my sick days... so I'm calling in dead"

1 0

Routable Prefix
by Aleph One 24 Oct '96

24 Oct '96

Excuse me for this interruption. Could someone point out to me whats the smallest prefix routable now a days on the net? /18? /19? /20? No need to bother the list further with this. Private email will sufice. Thanks in advance. a1

2 1

nanog conf. multicast
by Charles F. Crizer Jr. 24 Oct '96

24 Oct '96

Where is the nanog shindig being 'casted? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles F. Crizer Jr. KF4MNE Senior Systems Engineer ccrizer(a)dyncon.net DYNAMIC CONCEPTS http://www.cais.com/dyncon --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: a multihomed net
by Paul Ferguson 24 Oct '96

24 Oct '96

At 02:22 PM 10/23/96 +0000, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote: > >Yeah, application-level multihoming is great, considering most folks only >need a couple of applications. :) Also, it is very applicable for >our part of the world, where bandwidth costs are humongous, and BGP- >capable routers come at inflated prices. > I would submit that applications are quite reliant upon routing for transit capabilities, so I'm not quite sure what your point is here. - paul

2 1

Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
by Kent W. England 24 Oct '96

24 Oct '96

At 12:33 PM 23-10-96 -0400, Robert Laughlin wrote: >As one who is living this senerio on a daily basis, I can tell you it's >frustrating and upsetting. Actually, peering requirements today are the first effective barrier to entry into the ISP business that have been successfully realized and I don't mean that in a restraint of trade sense. CIX settlements didn't do the trick and NAP fees didn't either. :-) But the cost of peering today makes transit look reasonable in many more cases. I sympathize with your frustration and with the frustration of the large ISPs in dealing with the huge caseloads of peering requests. > >The model that makes sense to me, is for the largest networks to exchange >traffic through private interconnects, and for them to treat the >aggregated NAP traffic as another large ISP. The NAP is then used for the >2nd tier and smaller providers to exchange traffic with each other, as >well as a collection point to gather up traffic for the large networks. Well, yes, but what if the large players satisfied their need to interconnect with their largest peers at private interconnects? What would be their motivation to maintain good connectivity and good routing to the open interconnects? I think their enthusiasm for maintaining good connectivity to the open interconnects might wane, much as their enthusiasm for CIX with its mandated peering has waned. The disappearance (more accurately, the crippling) of the open interconnects will mean the barrier to entry will become truly awesome, something like a dozen private DS-3 interconnects to get full routing. --Kent speaking as the PacBell NAP technical consultant ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks 1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400 Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe(a)6SigmaNets.com Experienced Internet Consulting ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~

1 0

[fwd] Rats take down Stanford ...
by Paul Ferguson 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

A follow-up thought on redundancy issues. - paul [snip] >Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:54:05 -0700 (PDT) >From: risks(a)csl.sri.com >Subject: RISKS DIGEST 18.54 [snip] > >Date: Fri, 18 Oct 96 11:03 EST >From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580(a)mcimail.com> >Subject: Re: Rats take down Stanford ... (RISKS-18.53) > >PGN's request for redundancy brings to mind the story of the infrastructure >computer center in Trumbull, Connecticut. It is an old story but bears >repeating. > >Seems that a squirrel got into a transformer and brought down the external >power supply. The UPS kicked in, engine generators came on line, and the >center operated in this mode for about an hour and a half. At the end of >that time the external power was restored. The external power, the UPS, and >the engine generators went inot a deadly embrace. The whole thing came down >and would not come back up. > >I take two lessons from this. First, redundancy adds some complexity and a >lot of redundancy adds a lot of complexity. At some point the redundancy >begins to introduce failure modes and failure events that would not have >exited in its absence. There is an upper bound to such redundancy. > >Second, test redundant systems through to resumption of normal operations. >In this case, the operators had tested to ensure that the redundant systems >would come online in the event of a failure of the primary system. They had >not tested to see what would happen when the primary system was restored to >normal operation. > >Who would have even thought about it? I confess that I would not have. > >William Hugh Murray, New Canaan, Connecticut > [snip]

2 1

Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
by Jonathan Heiliger 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote: |} One Big Win (tm) with the creation of local interconnects (for |} instance, strategic locations in Asia & South/Central America), is that |} local content providers can find a way to swap bits without transiting |} all the way back to the United States; in my opinion, we need more |} exchanges to decrease the amount of traffic contributing to this |} problem. Unfortunately the larger network providers, which provide access to the bulk of the users haven't quite grasped this model, or are ignoring it. Some have jumped the fence and are working with content companies and/or their providers' to both (a) spread the load out and (b) focus on keeping content local within a region. The Internet is made up of users, the users are there in part, because they believe they can get better, quicker, or easier access to "content," than they could using other methods (e.g. newspaper, TV, etc.) This illustrates the point that if there isn't any content, what is the Internet but a big Email network? -jh-

1 0

Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
by Paul Ferguson 23 Oct '96

23 Oct '96

At 08:38 PM 10/22/96 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > >*BUT* here is my question. Don't private interconnects essentially >provide a new apex for the internet? One that pushes interconnects at the >major exchange points down a level. Sprint, MCI, UUNET, and BBN are >clearly the four largest players by market share. All of them have >multiple private interconnects with each other. perhaps ANS does as well. >AGIS certainly does not. So in this sense, the "6" have not really become >15 but rather have become 4 or maybe 5. > This begs the question: What value do 'private' interconnects/exchanges provide? I would submit that the answer isn't readily acknowledgeable, or at least, has not been explored to the extents necessary. One Big Win (tm) with the creation of local interconnects (for instance, strategic locations in Asia & South/Central America), is that local content providers can find a way to swap bits without transiting all the way back to the United States; in my opinion, we need more exchanges to decrease the amount of traffic contributing to this problem. The value of private exchanges/peering between the larger global providers is that they can get traffic off of their backbone before it reaches exchange points which are already glowing in the dark. I don't think this needs much explanation. Part of the problem is that, the more BGP peers, the more the statistical chances for instability. Unfortunately, I don't readily see a solution to this particular issue, if large providers are not economically incentivized to build more, smaller interconnect points which allow tier-2 and tier-3 providers to peer with them. Then again, I don't pretend to understand *all* of the corporate political, technical and economic, issues. ;-) - paul (en route to Ann Arbor)

1 0