Wow, weird. Something I am wondering for quite some time already. My understanding is that the NSFNET infrastructural replacement for a finite amount of time and degrading support percentage is principally giving support to the (former) NSFNET mid-level/regional networks to obtain services for interconnection via some NSP on the competitive market. Secondly, the NSP chosen by the regional network has to interconnect to at least the three primary NAPs, with the principal reason to not partition the overall fabric. Thirdly some RA function to help with waving a wand over the art of routing. As a client of a client of a regional network that receives interconnection funding I have really no way to determine how the second criteria is being met, and the attached message suggests that it may not be. Can someone from the North American Network Operators Group (I think NANOG is the best place for this) please help finding some answers to: . are all three (four?) NAPs really being used (I know they are there, but despite repeated requests to at least one NAP service provider I appear to be unable to get an answer). I do know that the NY NAP is heavily used, including as my traffic to the Bay area sites I need access to traverses it (modulo all the losses in Sprintlink for at least weeks (reported to and confirmed by the regional network that serves SDSC, though from rumors I am hearing Sprintlink is rather not the exception, and many natives in the community starting to get restless] . Is there any evidence that the NAPs are really backing each other up? Did someone test and document it, e.g., with a few "test" networks in a bunch of regional networks? What are the time delays for a switch? Does someone have consecutive traceroute outputs where a switch among the NAPs really happened? . do we have some regular examples from *any* site A initiating a connection from A to B, A to C, and A to D, where the three are verifiably (via traceroute, I guess) would traverse different NAPs (and hopefully only one each)? . Are there routing stability reports accessible online from the RA (or whoever else feels responsible for this) that graph fluctuations at the NAPs, including correlation among them? What are the quality metrics for routing stability? . Do all the NAPs provide online statistics? . Are the NAP and RA regular reports to NSF publicly (hopefully via the Web) available? . Is there any way NANOG can be used to exchange status information about networks, rather than getting comments and rumors second or third hand. I understand that it is painful for a service provider to see problems on their network being posted, but if the alternative is a few bad incidents and rumors spreading that the network is always bad, I'd take a few hits and show I fix things quickly. Even better then posting (e.g, via some mailing list) would be an accessible distributed data base covering all the service pproviders and accessible via the network. Is someone already working on that? Would not NANOG be *the* forum to cooperate on that? I think this is prime NANOG business. Otherwise, who's problem are these? Who is or should be taking responsibility? Am I all off base here?
Anyone willing to say what happened?
******************************************************************** Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscript.: Individ-ascii $85 The COOK Report on Internet Non Profit. $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate. Site Lic $650 http://www.netaxs.com/~cook <- Subscription Info & COOK Report Index ********************************************************************
---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: cook@cookreport.com Subject: MCI and SprintLink are partitioned (fwd)
Forwarded message:
From spot.Colorado.EDU!westnet-site-people-request Tue Oct 3 20:48:25 1995 From: Chris Garner <cgarner@westnet.net> Message-Id: <199510040136.TAA06094@dozer.colorado.edu> Subject: MCI and SprintLink are partitioned To: westnet-site-people@westnet.net Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:36:50 -0600 (MDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 289
MCI and SprintLink are disconnected at the moment. MCI is having a BGP problem with SprintLink. Currently the two networks are partitioned. The problem started just after 7pm (Mountain time) and is still occuring.
--
-Chris (cgarner@westnet.net)