- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE Re: BBN outage
by Jon Bosanac 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

To: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> > So BBN says they are now going to install a generator, my question is why > was a generator not installed? They saved 20 - 100K on a generator, but I > bet they will lose more then that when users leave. So, were you saying something? -jon

2 1

Re: Creating exchanges [Was: Re: MAE-East - 30%]
by rja＠cisco.com 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

Robert, It is my understanding that one can access the fiber transiting Guam without any special obstacles. Ran PS: Go look at UUNET's map online... --

2 1

Creating exchanges [Was: Re: MAE-East - 30%]
by Paul Ferguson 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

This is also the reason why we [collectively] are encouraging the creation of local exchange points outside of North America. The situation where two providers in The Phillipines (for example) have to back-haul traffic to the US to exchange bits is contributing to the overall problem. This needs to be fixed, but it certainly won't happen overnight, primarily due to the economic situation in the general locale. The possibility to correct this problem increases as deregulation happens. - paul At 02:08 PM 10/9/96 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: >Isn't this the reason that MAE-East is at 30%, i.e. there are now many >private interconnects between tier 1 NSP's to offload traffic from major >exchanges like MAE-East? > >Not to mention that MAE-East is no longer the only major interconnect, a >fact that seems to be taking some time to work it's way into >net.mythology. >

8 10

Re: BBN outage
by Per Gregers Bilse 12 Oct '96

12 Oct '96

> > Why, just a few weeks ago there was a big discussion here on the > > NANOG list that definitively proved that end-user multihoming > > REDUCED reliability for that customer. BBN is a big company... > > why would you want to risk all the complexity of having a > > backup circuit to someone else? > > 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. Please distinguish between singly-connected and singly-homed, they really are two different things. If Sun has just a plain, regular connection, a garden variety leased line outage will take them out. If OTOH they had had a connection to one of BBN's other CA POPs, they would have been just fine. It is intuitively obvious that the advantage of multihoming does not outweigh the additional complexity, cost and failure modes, whereas multiconnecting can be done at reasonable cost while actually providing more reliable service overall. All information clearly indicates that the PA outage was one of these near-enough disasters that can and do happen, just like hurricanes and floods and whatever. You can't blame BBN for that, but you could conceivably blame Sun, InfoWorld and/or whoever for having just a single connection, if they're supposed to take their Internet business seriously -- do these people really want to be taken out by a blown CSU/DSU? -- ------ ___ --- Per G. Bilse, Mgr Network Operations ----- / / / __ ___ _/_ ---- EUnet Communications Services B.V. ---- /--- / / / / /__/ / ----- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL --- /___ /__/ / / /__ / ------ tel: +31 20 5305333, fax: +31 20 6224657 --- ------- 24hr emergency number: +31 20 421 0865 --- Connecting Europe since AS286 --- http://www.EU.net e-mail: bilse(a)EU.net

1 0

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

12 Oct '96

Original message <199610112242.PAA26232(a)osprey.webpros.com> From: Sanjay Dani(maillists) <indus(a)professionals.com> Date: Oct 11, 15:42 Subject: Re: BBN outage > ... > On an unrelated note, I still have hard time believing > companies like Sun are single homed through bbnplanet > and have no backup when things like this happen. Why, just a few weeks ago there was a big discussion here on the NANOG list that definitively proved that end-user multihoming REDUCED reliability for that customer. BBN is a big company... why would you want to risk all the complexity of having a backup circuit to someone else? -matthew kaufman matthew(a)scruz.net

3 2

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

12 Oct '96

[In the message entitled "Re: BBN outage" on Oct 11, 17:23, Matthew Kaufman writes:] > > 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 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. -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

4 3

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