Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
JBash, In my experience, the primary technical factors that are hurting Internet reliability at this time are roughly (in no particular order): 1) Poorly performing routers. I would estimate that 50% of the packet loss in the Internet today is wholly unnecessary and results soley from defective gear. The route cache paradigm (and subsequent cache thrashing) in current cisco product, the lack of memd, missing high performance interfaces, and the lack of backplane bandwidth are all grave problems. I will certainly accept some personal culpability here, but cisco has had far too long to get its act together and has not responded. I refer you to Mr. Bilger for further progress. 2) Lack of bandwidth. There are frequently cases where the bandwidth simply does not exist. This may be due to lack of planning, lack of will, greed, or whatever. Only economics will drive this forward. 3) Poor engineering. The number of ISP's who have no idea what they're doing is still quite high. I refer you to Greg, Ravi, et. al. for war stories on what really happens. 4) Lack of routing scalability. You expressed amazement that the BGP mesh still holds together. My amazement exceeds yours. A new generation of protocol is needed which, if nothing else, is much easier to manage, and can scale to larger domains. You know some of the kludgery that was done to aid this scaling. It's time for a new generation which incorporates this as the base. Unfortunately, this isn't useful without #1. Given this _technical_ environment where literally no one _CAN_ succeed in delivering volume quality Internet connectivity, I'm not surprised that you've gotten evasive, defensive, and non-sensical replies. I wholeheartedly agree that the service level of the Internet as a whole is pathetic, but given the above situation, your efforts are better spent internally at cisco rather than trying to perform external social engineering. Once the technical situation improves, the market will eliminate those who (for whatever reason) are unable to deliver. If the technical situation does not improve shortly, the market will simply eliminate the Internet. ;-( Regards, Tony
2) Lack of bandwidth. There are frequently cases where the bandwidth simply does not exist. This may be due to lack of planning, lack of will, greed, or whatever. Only economics will drive this forward.
Or lack of tariffs. There are a number of places where it would be real interesting to buy a pile of OC3s, but the telcos simply can't sell it since they don't have a way of doing so. Bandwidth not existing may also be due to the telcos simply not having it available. --asp@partan.com (Andrew Partan)
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Tony Li wrote: [excellent technical summary deleted for bandwidth conservation]
Given this _technical_ environment where literally no one _CAN_ succeed in delivering volume quality Internet connectivity, I'm not surprised that you've gotten evasive, defensive, and non-sensical replies.
In addition to this, even for very savy customer, it's very difficult to measure a good network. Tools that are available are at best incomplete, and comprehensive metrics to judge a good network are very hard to come by. So while in normal situations, economic factors will weed out worthless providers, in the current climate, this isn't happening because you can't measure/prove why provider X provides better service then provider Y, even if they could engineer it. All an end user is left is a murky feeling that their provider might be broken. Hopefully, along with technical advances, we'll get advances in network measurement area (hopefully IPPM effort of IETF will bear bountiful fruit) so will force providers to the "right thing" or face loss of business. -dorian
All an end user is left is a murky feeling that their provider might be broken. Hopefully, along with technical advances, we'll get advances in network measurement area (hopefully IPPM effort of IETF will bear bountiful fruit) so will force providers to the "right thing" or face loss of business. Yes, but the end user need not be the only metric that a provider can gauge itself by. For example, the provider has the very nice metric of "trouble tickets per day per billi-packet". This gives him a real gauge of how many problems his network is seeing. If the customer is happy, then the provider must be doing something right... Tony
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Tony Li wrote:
itself by. For example, the provider has the very nice metric of "trouble tickets per day per billi-packet". This gives him a real gauge of how many problems his network is seeing. If the customer is happy, then the provider must be doing something right...
The only problem with this metric is that under heavy load, it tends to have high packet loss. Which is, of course, where over-engineering comes in... ;) -dorian
participants (3)
-
Andrew Partan
-
Dorian R. Kim
-
Tony Li