- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Creating exchanges
by rja＠cisco.com 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Ran Atkinson wrote: > This is another reason to use Guam for an interconnect. Guam is part > of the USA and so telecommunications is already deregulated. (A side benefit > for US citizens living on Guam is that Guam is the only place in the universe > where one's income is not subject to US Federal Income Tax, go figure :-). On Oct 11, 10:35am, Robert Mathews-ICICX wrote: % Hello Fellow Electronic Colleagues: % % <looking around a room> Can anyone say Hawaii? :) Hawaii does have lots of fiber. Monetary costs for circuits between Guam and Hawaii are not ignorable. Also, back-haul all the way to Hawaii for an intra-Asia interconnect causes a significant increase in latency when compared with a Guam-based interconnect. (No, I've never been to Guam and I don't own any land or fiber there :-) Ran rja(a)cisco.com --

4 4

Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II
by Vadim Antonov 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

I'm sorry that this is getting more and more off-topic... William Allen Simpson <wsimpson(a)greendragon.com> wrote: >Delivery of all social services has clearly been shown to be cheaper >when done by government, when costs of fund collection, advertisement, >and administration are included. Private charity is always more >expensive, even when partly done with volunteer labor. The best numbers >I have at hand are 3% government (US Food Stamps) versus 17% private >(United Way) for administrative costs to delivered services. And when >advertising and fund collection are added, many non-profit "charities" >spend upwards of 50% on overhead! Huh? Sure you forgot to figure in the cost of collection of taxes and counted only disbursement (and did you count enforcement and what groceries spend on processing food stamps?) Most of what charities spend is cost of fundraising. When you figure _that_ in, you'll get government efficiency well below that of any private organization. And, of course, it is always much simplier to get funds for "charity" by telling people they'd better pay or go to jail. What you compare is charity and legalized racket. In fact, the social cost of welfare is enormous. It created generations of people which cannot and don't want to earn living. A culture of entitlement, if you like. No charity ever made recipients "entitled" to anything. >Another outstanding example is Public Radio and Television. Huh? "I have thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose from?" That's outstanding? The question is if TV is really a useful medium for education. I'd rather contend it is not. Those monely would be much better spent on providing traditional reading-based education. >Meanwhile, the hourly content has been diminished to insert the >advertising. A classic documented case of the inefficiency of >privatization.... No. Just don't buy TV. TV is pure entertaintment. It is passive. It is counter-intellectual. If it dies this will be a better world. Privatization is not about perpetuating losing propositions, ok? >Single payer medical services has also been shown to be cheaper than >"insurance" systems, especially when advertisement and administration >costs are counted. True, they have a tendency to reduce "choice", but >so do the private commercial US HMOs, whether profit or non-profit. That surely explains why in Canada people wait for operations for years. As old Soviet saying goes "Free medicine is fine if you're not interested in results". And sure we all like gag orders and Medicare steadily going bankrupt. >Centralized government recyling also comes to mind. Private commercial >firms have more administrative overhead costs than goverment programs, >even when governments are handling the fee collection (taxes). Ah, yes. Tell that to local govts in Silicon Valley. For some reason i do not think BFI is a government department. >More importantly to the case at hand, government use built the recycling >waste stream to a point where commercial efforts could be mounted, and >built a chain of suppliers and consumers. Government can encourage commerce by tax exemptions. It shouldn't _replace_ commerce. >This is similar to the Internet experience. Goverment use built the net >to a point where commercial activity could occur. Sorry, the case of Internet is too much touted precisely because it's one rare government-funded program which didn't go bust. There's a million of others which silently died after wasting billions. Or if we talk about networks should we drag out the corpse of OSI? OSI consumed by orders of magnitude more resources than original Internet development. >We already had commercial telecommunications companies; they gave us >X.25 ... and now, ATM. X.25 was fine for its time. It still processes all credit card and ATM transactions. ATM (another one) is going to be dead pretty soon, as new generation of IP routers will roll out. And, ah, yes. ATM figured prominently in NAP-related papers, ok? vBNS is ATM-based. _Who_ is promoting that insanity? And don't forget that between a fuzzball and a cisco router is the huge distance. >I'm afraid your emotional bias is showing. You are responsible for the >government you have, and it spends its money exactly as you permit it. I'm currntly paying taxes to the government which doesn't even allow me to have a voice in how it spends those taxes. It doesn't neglect to collect it, though. Sorry, but all governments are literally nothing more than forms of protection racket. They "protect" their captive constitutients from other governments. I certainly never heard of any private party declaring a war, on, say, America. How is it different from a bunch of gangs sharing a city and extorting "tax" from local businesses to "protect" from other gangs? Sorry, having to choose between two morons is not exactly a big difference from having to accept the only one moron on top. I'm always amazed that people are so impressed by the officious decorum so they fail to see the principle behind it. >If not, you have the right to attempt to change it. Depends on how >self-importantly you think of your own life.... I try to change things i don't like. Sometimes i succeed. Guess whose idea it was to eliminate the "reseller" surcharges, which in turn made the present-day $20/mo Internet access possible? Or who was one of founders of the first public network on some 1/6 of the Earth landmass? --vadim

1 0

Why SVCs are useful
by Kent W. England 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

At 12:52 PM 10-10-96 -0800, you wrote: >| would you mind expanding a bit on why SVCs would do the job? >| We're trying to determine if it's a service worth offering anytime >| soon, who would use it, etc., > Basically SVCs are easier to support and more robust than PVCs, even if all you do is nail them up like PVCs. As an example, say an ATM service provider sets up a L2 service and a bunch of ISPs come and begin to interconnect bi-laterally. Each PVC has to be coordinated among three parties -- two ISPs and the ATM service provider. This is time consuming and error prone, but workable. Now, suppose after all this has been set up, something happens to the ATM switch and it forgets about a PVC. (Of course this would never happen, just like no router would ever get in a strange state and forget a route.) There is nothing on the endpoints able to re-establish the circuit, even though it is obvious that it is down or missing. No one on the endpoints can change the QoS or reconfigure their circuits and no one can set up their connection to accept new connection requests on demand, etc. In short, even without thinking about futuristic bandwidth on demand, SVCs would make the current classical paradigm easier to manage and more robust. Your first customer is your current service delivery department and NOC. --Kent

1 0

Re: BBN outage
by Eric Kozowski 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

>This reminds me of a passage from Bruce Sterling's _The Hacker Crackdown_. > > Parked outside the back is a power-generation truck. The generator > strikes me as rather anomalous. Don't they already have their own > generators in this eight-story monster? Then the suspicion strikes > me that NYNEX must have heard of the September 17 AT&T > power-outage which crashed New York City. Belt-and-suspenders, > this generator. Very telco. > >michael The Portland, OR AT&T POP has _two_ trailer (40') mounted generators in the parking lot, in addition to a fixed mount generator. Typically, generators that large are in the 2000-5000kw capacity. -- Eric Kozowski Senior Network Engineer eric(a)structured.net Structured Network Systems, Inc. (503)656-3235 FAX Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two. (800)881-0962 Voice http://www.structured.net/ "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service" -- 56k to DS1

1 0

Re: BBN outage
by Michael Dillon 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Charles R. Hoynowski wrote: > I started seeing mail > failures to Stanford (a big BBN site) at 9:33am PDT I believe that Infoworld magazine's site is also on BBN. This is the magazine that Bob Metcalfe writes for. I haven't been able to get to www.infoworld.com all day. A traceroute to www.infoworld.com (192.216.48.63) ends at barrnet.SanFrancisco.mci.net (166.48.19.250) and whois whois 192.216.48 shows up with this BBN BARRNET, Inc. (NETBLK-BARRNET) NETBLK-BARRNET192.216.0.0 - 192.216.255.255 The various failures that are happening this year are sure getting a *LOT* more visibility and press coverage than failures in previous years. It seems to me that in a way, Metcalfe's Internet collapse of 1996 really has arrived. However I would say that it is a measure of the net's pervasiveness and importance rather than a measure of the net's stability. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael(a)memra.com

1 0

Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II
by William Allen Simpson 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

> From: Vadim Antonov <avg(a)quake.net> > > Maybe. More likely it's a tool to give Higher Education > > institutions a QOS independant from the commercial world (also cheaper). > > Cheaper? Have you _ever_ seen anything done by the government that is > cheaper after you count all hidden costs? Actually, yes, there are quite a few examples.... Delivery of all social services has clearly been shown to be cheaper when done by government, when costs of fund collection, advertisement, and administration are included. Private charity is always more expensive, even when partly done with volunteer labor. The best numbers I have at hand are 3% government (US Food Stamps) versus 17% private (United Way) for administrative costs to delivered services. And when advertising and fund collection are added, many non-profit "charities" spend upwards of 50% on overhead! Another outstanding example is Public Radio and Television. That has been eroding as the government share of payments has been decreased, and overhead has increased due to the need for attracting advertising "sponsors". Once upon a time, there was virtually no non-production overhead. Now, with increased commercialization, there is a need to hire public relations and fundraising and grant writing personnel. Meanwhile, the hourly content has been diminished to insert the advertising. A classic documented case of the inefficiency of privatization.... Single payer medical services has also been shown to be cheaper than "insurance" systems, especially when advertisement and administration costs are counted. True, they have a tendency to reduce "choice", but so do the private commercial US HMOs, whether profit or non-profit. Centralized government recyling also comes to mind. Private commercial firms have more administrative overhead costs than goverment programs, even when governments are handling the fee collection (taxes). Private firms simply pay their administrators more, have a higher administrator to worker ratio, and have "profits" to distribute to shareholders. And far more of the waste stream ends up in land-fills, simply because it's still cheaper (in many parts of this country) than recycling. So, when the _goal_ is recycling, the government programs are far more cost effective for reaching that goal. More importantly to the case at hand, government use built the recycling waste stream to a point where commercial efforts could be mounted, and built a chain of suppliers and consumers. This is similar to the Internet experience. Goverment use built the net to a point where commercial activity could occur. We already had commercial telecommunications companies; they gave us X.25 ... and now, ATM. > Aw, how cute. Sounds like first-grader's taking about Granddad Lenin. > Surely smart grown-up people up will show us the Only And True Way, > they sure know better how to spend our money. > I'm afraid your emotional bias is showing. You are responsible for the government you have, and it spends its money exactly as you permit it. If not, you have the right to attempt to change it. Depends on how self-importantly you think of your own life.... WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

1 0

Re: BBN outage
by dlr＠bungi.com 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

[In the message entitled "Re: BBN outage" on Oct 11, 21:29, John Hawkinson writes:] > > I will be happy to create this. In fact, it is done. > > > > outage(a)bungi.com is the address, outage-request(a)bungi.com for > > subscription. Majordomo-run, so it should be pretty painless. > > > > Ready now. > > Please punt this in favor of Stan Barber's list. > > See http://www.academ.com/nanog/may1996/outage.html. > All for it - I've re-directed requests to his list. -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

1 0

Re: BBN outage
by Sean Donelan 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

>Because loss of connectivity for a day costs 10's of thousands >of dollars and, evidently, even the "big" companies are not >immune from "acts of god" like what happened today. Don't forget to submit those claims for credit under BBNplanet's 99.9% connectivity guarantee announced on September 24, 1996 within seven days by electronic mail. How you send electronic mail when your network is down isn't known. There seems to be a pattern forming here, AOL went off the air shortly after their provider announced their backbone availability guarantee too. Yes, its funny if it wasn't so serious. Every provider has problems, and their problems effect other people and providers. Hopefully providers will learn people notice when their network disappears. Maybe they just like getting lots of phone calls to their NOC. But it would be nice if there was a way providers could keep a broader audience informed rather than waiting for people to call. Am I really that unusual? I expect the worst to happen, and am always pleasently surprised when it doesn't. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Re: BBN outage
by pace＠smtp.amerhonda.com 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

> Every private reply I've gotten has basically said "nope, nobody at > BBN posted anything to anywhere about the outage" and a few said > "I called the NOC and found out the story". > > That's silly though... there's now thousands of providers out there. > One good posting to an outage list that could be put on each little > provider's status pages would save hundreds of calls of the big-network NOC. > > You'd think us network-operators would learn from these past several > big outages and have a good, reliable, mailing list up by now, but > I haven't heard about one. I'm reluctant to start it myself, because I > don't have enough network paths out of here to make it useful during > a serious multi-provider problem. I got a trouble ticket report from BBN when the outtage occurred, but that's probably because I'm a customer. I am very surprised that they did not have a generator backup on their UPS at such a critical site. Joe

1 0

Re: BBN outage
by matthew＠scruz.net 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

Original message <961011191535.20554(a)SDG.DRA.COM> From: Sean Donelan <SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM> Date: Oct 11, 19:15 Subject: Re: BBN outage > ... > Yes, its funny if it wasn't so serious. Every provider has problems, > and their problems effect other people and providers.... ... Every private reply I've gotten has basically said "nope, nobody at BBN posted anything to anywhere about the outage" and a few said "I called the NOC and found out the story". That's silly though... there's now thousands of providers out there. One good posting to an outage list that could be put on each little provider's status pages would save hundreds of calls of the big-network NOC. You'd think us network-operators would learn from these past several big outages and have a good, reliable, mailing list up by now, but I haven't heard about one. I'm reluctant to start it myself, because I don't have enough network paths out of here to make it useful during a serious multi-provider problem. -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

1 0