- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: MCI
by bajaj＠bellcore.com 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

>> > > > > What kinds of routers can route at near wire speeds a bunch of ports at > > > > 155Mb ATM? > > > > > > None right now. Gigarouter can handle it theoretically, but... > > > > > > I'm being picky, but it's a moot question since doing wirespeed OC3c using > > > ATM is impossible in of itself. Hell, mapping of > > > SONET framings to ATM cells take off about 6 mbps right there. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > By the way, I did not post the above.. Oops. Replied to the right thread but wrong author. > bajaj(a)bellcore.com (Shikhar Bajaj) wrote: > > A couple of minor corrections here. ATM cells are mapped into SONET frames and > > not the reverse. Also, I presume that the 6 Mbps that you are talking about is that > > the ATM bit rate over an OC-3 is 149 Mbps as opposed to the OC-3 pipe > > rate of 155 Mbps. Those 6 Mbps are taken up by the SONET management overhead > > (section, line, and path) in the frame. This is independent of whatever goes in the > > SONET payload envelope and has nothing to do with ATM. > > > It seems to me that Sonet OC-3 is often taken as transport for 3 DS3s, > which would reduce 155.530 Mbps to 134.208 Mbps (3 x 44.736 Mbps), less > than the 149 Mbps you cite above. The 149 Mbps assumes that you have a native ATM/OC-3 interface where the SONET transport is STS-3c ('c' for concatenated). Here, a single connection can use the full bandwidth of the pipe. In your example, a DS-3 gets mapped into an STS-1 and then 3 STS-1s get muliplexed into an STS-3. The multiplexing is for trunking purposes and there is no relation between any of the STS-1's (other than they are byte multiplexed). Thus, the maximum bandwidth available for any single connection is 51 Mbps (or DS-3 in this case). Routers with ATM/OC-3 interfaces do STS-3c framing. > Do you have a good recommendation for Gordon Cook, TCP/IP direct over Sonet? I've heard rumblings about such work going on but I am not personally familiar with any of it. The only thing I can think of is some work that the IETF did for PPP over SONET (RFC 1619). I *think* it became an Internet Standard. Shikhar

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Curtis Villamizar 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

In message <199603150738.CAA11310(a)jekyll.piermont.com>, "Perry E. Metzger" writ es: > > Curtis Villamizar writes: > > Hoarding is only effective if there is a scarce resource, even if it > > is artificially scarce, as in the two "gas shortages" of the 1970s > > (when there were huge gas company stockpiles and enormous gas company > > profits). > > The gas shortages of the 1970s were caused by the fact that the > U.S. government regulated oil prices. Whenever you artificially lower > the price of anything, you create shortages. When decontrol occurred, > shortages mysteriously and totally stopped. Amazing, ain't it. Perry, Just a point of history. The gas shortages were both triggered by OPEC moves which reduced crude oil imports. There were enormous oil reserves in all of the major oil companies. They were not willing to release those oil reserves because of their LIFO inventory practices, used to defer tax liability. The oil companies tried to convince the government to waive the taxes that were due if they sold down their inventory that was on the books at oil prices going back many decades. The govenment would not allow them to convert from LIFO to FIFO inventory and simply waive taxes on the billions of dollars of oil on the books for almost no value so the oil companies tried holding the consumer hostage in hopes of putting enough pressure on. There were no regulations on gasoline prices and they did go up but oil companies were hesitant to raise them too high and seem to be price gouging during a fabricated shortage but also didn't want to pay taxes on the profit of selling at the current price with inventory at the old prices. Curtis

1 0

Re: MCI
by bajaj＠bellcore.com 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

> > > What kinds of routers can route at near wire speeds a bunch of ports at > > 155Mb ATM? > > None right now. Gigarouter can handle it theoretically, but... > > I'm being picky, but it's a moot question since doing wirespeed OC3c using > ATM is impossible in of itself. Hell, mapping of > SONET framings to ATM cells take off about 6 mbps right there. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A couple of minor corrections here. ATM cells are mapped into SONET frames and not the reverse. Also, I presume that the 6 Mbps that you are talking about is that the ATM bit rate over an OC-3 is 149 Mbps as opposed to the OC-3 pipe rate of 155 Mbps. Those 6 Mbps are taken up by the SONET management overhead (section, line, and path) in the frame. This is independent of whatever goes in the SONET payload envelope and has nothing to do with ATM. Shikhar

2 1

Re: MCI
by David Miller 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 Jasper(a)cloud9.net wrote: > MCI issued a press release this afternoon. Two items of interest: > > 1) MCI is upgrading its backbone from 45 megabits to 155 megabits per > second. They expect this to be done by mid April. I think this has been > coming along for a while now. > A question: > > Does anyone know when Sprint and Alternet will have their backbones up to > 155 megabits per second. A guy at MCI told me today they wouldn't have it > done until 1st quarter of 1997. Another question: What kinds of routers can route at near wire speeds a bunch of ports at 155Mb ATM? --- David Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when one doesn't know what one can't do!

4 4

Re: MCI
by Wolfgang Henke 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

> What kinds of routers can route at near wire speeds a bunch of ports at > 155Mb ATM? None right now. Gigarouter can handle it theoretically, but... I'm being picky, but it's a moot question since doing wirespeed OC3c using ATM is impossible in of itself. Hell, mapping of SONET framings to ATM cells take off about 6 mbps right there. Anyway, until then you have a router that can do this, there always are ATM switches + cluster of routers. True, Netstars's Gigarouter is the fastest one shipping now. Its aggregate advertised bandwidth is 16 Gbps using a 16x16 matrix of non-blocking crosspoint switches. I have assembled a list of several best effort packet routers including known research efforts: http://www.whnet.com/wolfgang/giga.html Corrections and additions are welcome. Wolfgang Wolfgang Henke wolfgang(a)whnet.com . http://www.whnet.com/wolfgang/ WH Networks ... ftp.whnet.com /pub/wolfgang 2672 Bayshore Parkway Suite 503 ....... +1 415 390 9316 Mountain View CA 94043 ................... fax +1 415 390 9317

1 0

Re: AS path length?
by Scott Huddle 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

Andrew Partan (asp(a)uunet.uu.net) writes > > 690 1128 1128 5400 137 5441 5445 5446 i > > Humm - I have 2 routes with this path: > 2885 690 1128 1128 5400 137 5441 5445 5446 3230 > It's not the size of the path, it's what you do with it. -scott

1 0

Re: MCI/MAE-East/PSI losses unacceptable
by sgoldste＠nsf.gov 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

At 6:05 PM 3/18/96, William Allen Simpson wrote: >What is going on out at MAE-East? From Michigan, I'm seeing a >tremendous loss there, all day (since 10 am) between >mae-east-plusplus.Washington.mci.net. and mae-east.psi.net. It is >completely impossible to POP3 my email. SUNOS just times out the TCP >connection after about 10KB in 1/2 hour. > I don't want to sound like the fly that was doing the elephant and asked, "Does this hurt?" But... NSF (the organization, the building, and not the networking division) in its infinite wisdom decided to change ISPs from SURANET (bbn Planet) to PSInet. The Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate, to which our networking division belongs, has its own "high-speed LAN" (HSL). NSF, the building, has still not changed over its connection to PSInet, but our HSL has. The building is apparently not going to switch over until it gets its firewall on-line. So, to get to color printers and other organizational resources, our packets go through PSInet via MAE-E and back via SURA/bbn (MCI circuits) to the main LANs. Yesterday was a very busy day, shipping scads of graphics files to the color printers getting ready for big presentation schedule. Did it hurt? --SG ____________________________________________ Steve Goldstein, National Science Foundation +1(703)306-1949 Ext. 1119 "Let's not procrastinate until next week!"

1 0

Re: AS path length?
by Brett D. Watson 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

this is the longest i could find on such short notice: * 192.107.51.0 192.41.177.140 128 80 0 690 1128 1128 5400 13 7 5441 5445 5446 i we have quite a lot of 192.* address with this as path. -brett > > And now for something completly different. > > What is the longest AS path that people see? > > > -- > --bill

2 1

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Paul Ferguson 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

At 09:09 AM 3/18/96 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > >BTW, there are 'rumours' floating around that China wants a couple of A's or >so... > There is also a train of thought that China should simply use RFC-1918 addressing and some type of network address translation, since they control explicit points of entry & exit to the global Internet from/to the country, and are determined to isolate themselves from the remainder of the Internet community anyway. But I digress. - paul

2 1

RE: NET99 sabotages IGC's routes NOW: The facts
by Ted Linnenkamp 19 Mar '96

19 Mar '96

New mail package, forgot new sig. Thanks, Ted L. *** Speaking solely for myself unless otherwise noted *** >---------- >From: Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] >Sent: Monday, March 18, 1996 5:03 PM >To: Ted Linnenkamp >Cc: 'Peter Kline, Sr. Network Engineer'; 'David ``Joel Katz'' >Schwartz'; 'nanog(a)merit.edu' >Subject: RE: NET99 sabotages IGC's routes NOW: The facts > >On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, Ted Linnenkamp wrote: > >> Please take this crap off of nanog. Resolve your pissing match somewhere >> else. >> >> Thanks in advance, > >Aren't you supposed to insert a disclaimer here about the opinions of >Microsoft? Or are these actually official opinions? :-) > > >Michael Dillon Voice: >+1-604-546-8022 >Memra Software Inc. Fax: >+1-604-546-3049 >http://www.memra.com E-mail: >michael(a)memra.com > >

1 0