The RS2 machine at MAE-West is once again up. The second machine should be up as well sometime next week. There is still plenty of cleanup to be done and disruptions of service may occur although I will do my best to make sure that does not happen. I would like to personally thank Lance Tatman at NASA, Louis Bamberger and the folks at Sun, and all the rest of those who stayed up through the night for their help in this ordeal. If there are any problems or questions, please feel free to page me at 1-800-635-1868. -- /*====================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@Merit.Net> ]=====================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | Vox: (313) 763-4907 Fax: (313) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +==[ Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/
On Sat, 25 May 1996, Jake Khuon wrote:
The RS2 machine at MAE-West is once again up. The second machine should be up as well sometime next week. There is still plenty of cleanup to be done and disruptions of service may occur although I will do my best to make sure that does not happen.
Does that mean you are replacing one of the Suns with an Alpha? I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with Sun equipment, just that it is odd to see a mission critical function being performed by two identical machines when you have a wide choice of equipment to use that will do the job. Michael Dillon ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
### On Sat, 25 May 1996 08:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Michael Dillon ### <michael@memra.com> wrote to Jake Khuon <khuon@Merit.Net> concerning ### "Re: MAE-West is up again": MD> Does that mean you are replacing one of the Suns with an Alpha? Personally, I wouldn't mind doing this. However, the Digital Unix port of RSd was not complete. Ramesh Govindan of ISI and myself spent several hours in an attempt to get it running but it seems there were some deeply rooted porting concerns that we didn't have time to find or address last night. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@Merit.Net> ]======================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | VOX: (313) 763-4907 FAX: (313) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +==[ Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/
Just a side on the the Sun, Alpha Unix port discussion.... As most of you probally know, I have the pleasure of 'maintaining' the linux benchmarks for a couple of years. We have *not* seen evidence, to date, that the UNIX port(s) to Alpha is 'so hot', and I'm not just speaking in terms of linux here, because people send Suns, Alpha/Foo, HP-UX, SGI, benchmarks as well. The performance numbers for the Pentium Pro have been coming in (http://www.silkroad.com/linux-bm.html) and the results are very exciting. UNIX ports to Intel architecuture are much more mature than Alphas ports (goes without saying) and the P Pro numbers are comparable to Alpha. Don't, however, take my word for it.... Check out the benchmark collection and feel free to run the test suite (also on the server) on 'Your Platform of Choice with GCC Compiler'. As most here know and understand, bare metal CPU Spec numbers do not necessarily translate to a fast kernel or networking code, etc. Cheers, Tim
Tim, Your message addressed platform performance, not network operations. My reply is mostly just about network operations.
Just a side on the the Sun, Alpha Unix port discussion.... [...] The performance numbers for the Pentium Pro have been coming in (http://www.silkroad.com/linux-bm.html) and the results are very exciting. UNIX ports to Intel architecuture are much more mature than Alphas ports (goes without saying) and the P Pro numbers are comparable to Alpha.
Route servers don't need to have high performance hardware. A 33MHz 486, or god help us all, a Sun-3/60 or MicroVAX III would all have enough horsepower to run RSd. The same is true of root name servers. Only three things matter: 1. memory. lots of it (256MB or so, with room to grow). ECC preferred. 2. support. two sun techs were still at Ames last night when I left at 3AM. neither one of them knew as much about their hardware as most Linux users know about Intel's, but they got the job done Even Without Any Wizards. 3. port-able. RSd makes some assumptions about sizeof(void*)==sizeof(int) which aren't valid for the Alpha, else RS1 would have come up first. this kind of bad code is quite common in our community, but on most systems it doesn't hurt anything.
As most here know and understand, bare metal CPU Spec numbers do not necessarily translate to a fast kernel or networking code, etc.
I have built and sold more than 50 BSD/OS servers in the last few years, and I am a _very_strong_ proponent of the approach. My own root name server runs on a P5-120 BSD/OS machine and I'm quite pleased with it. But if I need to put a server far away where non-wizard field service technicians have to be able to fix it, I pick a vendor like DEC or SGI or HP or Sun. Performance, kernel performance, context switching speed, file system speed, network performance, and all the rest are just side issues. For a WWW farm, those things matter. For a Route Server or a root name server, they don't. (All that said, the hardware behind the current RS1.MAE-WEST.RA.NET is the latest and greatest Alpha, and it runs about 100% faster than a P6-200. Now if we could just find the portability ickies in RSd, we'd be finished.) Paul
Paul writes:
Your message addressed platform performance, not network operations. My reply is mostly just about network operations.
To be sure, you are correct. My subliminal message was more-than-likely something like this: "There is very little justification for being single threaded in network operations in today's very inexpensive, high performance, UN*X world.' (IYKWIM) So, the issue, does not really appear to be "Router Servers: Are They A Good Thing, Yes or No"? as implied in a much earlier post, but more an architecutural issue, single threaded configurations, and so forth. Even 'experimental, non-operational' (whatever that really means in the real world.... use at your own risk) services such as RA could easily and cheaply have some redundancy built in at a very moderate cost in todays world. Back to Saturday, Best Regards, Tim Side note to Gordon Cook based on his contribution earlier: Gordon, just a little barb to you, please do not take it personally, but.. "is your current trip to Russia also funded by the NSF similar to your previous trip"? ( inquiring minds want to know ;-) Whoops! There I go again, standing in the corner, just losing my religion.... Oh well, I said too much, I haven't said enought.... Micheal Stipe, REM.
tim asks who is paying for my trip to Russia. How about me for incidentals and a total of $13.50 for tax on a delta frequent flyer ticket? NSF has paid for NONE of my trips. In Sept october 1994 NATO paid for a $620 airplane ticket and I paid $120 to extend it and for all other expenses. ********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" *********************************************************************** On Sat, 25 May 1996, Tim Bass wrote:
Paul writes:
Your message addressed platform performance, not network operations. My reply is mostly just about network operations.
To be sure, you are correct. My subliminal message was more-than-likely something like this:
"There is very little justification for being single threaded in network operations in today's very inexpensive, high performance, UN*X world.' (IYKWIM)
So, the issue, does not really appear to be "Router Servers: Are They A Good Thing, Yes or No"? as implied in a much earlier post, but more an architecutural issue, single threaded configurations, and so forth.
Even 'experimental, non-operational' (whatever that really means in the real world.... use at your own risk) services such as RA could easily and cheaply have some redundancy built in at a very moderate cost in todays world.
Back to Saturday, Best Regards,
Tim
Side note to Gordon Cook based on his contribution earlier:
Gordon, just a little barb to you, please do not take it personally, but.. "is your current trip to Russia also funded by the NSF similar to your previous trip"? ( inquiring minds want to know ;-)
Whoops! There I go again, standing in the corner, just losing my religion.... Oh well, I said too much, I haven't said enought....
Micheal Stipe, REM.
Gordon, I publically apologize for the misunderstanding. I was sure that you told me, yourself, the NSF funded your first trip to the Soviet Union, and that your were very appreciative, considering you had earned your doctorate in a subject related to that part of the country and had not had a chance to visit that beautiful part of the world. As I recall, our entire private conversation was, in some form of fashion, about my concerns about ethics, commercialization, US taxpayer funds, and the NSF as it relates to the Internet, (a subject that I have been known to be critical and introspective). Your gratitude and kind words to the NSF came up in the converstation, as I recall. It seems, as you are pointing out, that my recollection of events is distorted or perhaps foggy. Thank you for kind reply. Again, I offer my deepest apologies for associating you with my interest in how the NSF distributes US taxpaper dollars. On the other hand, it is unusual for me to recall such an enjoyable conversation so vividly and make such a mistake. Hmmmm. Sorry for misrepresenting what I perceived was an accurate recollection of an interesting and lively discusssion. Keep up the good work and enjoy the beautiful sights of Asia! I'm considering trekking in Tibet in June myself, if this old tendon in my foot ever heals from 150 miles/week in-line skating. Best Regards, Tim ------ And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear You shout and no one seems to hear And if the band your're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. --- Roger Waters
On Sat, 25 May 1996, Tim Bass wrote:
The performance numbers for the Pentium Pro have been coming in (http://www.silkroad.com/linux-bm.html) and the results are very exciting. UNIX ports to Intel architecuture are much more mature than Alphas ports (goes without saying) and the P Pro numbers are comparable to Alpha.
This not just true for UNIX, a good friend of mine works out at Microsoft on the NT development team. He claims they've been seeing similar numbers on Alpha and Pentium Pro machines under Windows NT. Christopher E Stefan http://www.ironhorse.com/~flatline System Administrator Home: (206) 706-0945 Ironhorse Software, Inc. Work: (206) 783-6636 flatline@ironhorse.com finger for PGP key
Interestingly enough, there are now 5 Pentium Pro marks available for linux. The performance is awesome and the 'processing value' compared to many COTS FOO-UNIXs is truely amazing (not that the P5 100+ figures were *poor*, they are not!, but the Pentium Pro numbers suprised me. That is why, when I cruise the 'Files' and review the dollar amount of projects such as the RA (also awe-struck by the dollar amount, BTW ;-) it seems ironic that projects of such importance to the IP World can be configured to not to withstand a single platform crash (and as pointed out, you don't need P Pros and other higher end processors for hot and cold secondaries in this application). For example, for the 'public files': -------------------------------------------------------- NSF Org : NCR Latest Amendment Date : August 17, 1995 File : a9321060 Award Number: 9321060 Award Instr.: Cooperative Agreement Prgm Manager: Priscilla Jane Huston NCR DIV OF NETWORKING & COMMU RES & INFRASTR CSE DIRECT FOR COMPUTER & INFO SCIE & ENGINR Start Date : July 1, 1994 Expires : June 30, 1998 (Estimated) Expected Total Amt. : $10,360,637 (Estimated) Investigator: Eric M Aupperle Sponsor : Merit Inc 2200 Bonisteel Blvd Ann Arbor, MI 481092099 313/764-9423 NSF Program : 4091 NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE Fld Science : 31 Computer Science & Engineering Fld Applictn: 0206000 Telecommunications Abstract : 9321060 Merit, Inc. Aupperle The major project elements for the routing arbiter include advancement of Internet routing algorithms with respect to scaling and stability issues, routing information registration and dissemination for the network service providers serving the Internet, deployment of route servers to aid in the dissemination and real time maintenance of the global Internet routing system, and coordination and sharing of technical information in support of the Internet operations community. A key task for the routing arbiter will be to enhance the use of new switched services offered by the telecommunications carriers, sucy as ATM, in place of dedicated point to point technology that is widely deployed in wide area internets. This proposal is a part of a collaborative effort with USC. Merit will take the lead responsibility for the Management and Coordination, Transition, Routing Registry Dababase, Routing Operations Center (ROC) and GateD software development and collaboration. It will provide consultation to USC in routing engineering who will take the lead in research and development. Both the Merit and USC teams will collaborate in all areas, but Merit will take the lead for operations, for communications with clients relative to the services provided and for overall coordination. --------------------------end database file----------------------------- I think there is a mistake (maybe?) in the database because the $10,149,218 dollar program with RA as the 'major project element' is award #9321043; but award #9321060 has the *exact* same abstact for $10,360,637.... (I plead guilty for not understanding why the same abstract appears twice under two awards with similar but different dollar amounts and different award numbers...) I'll stop now, I can't explain why there are two $10 M awards in the database to Merit. Except that it must be an operator entry error in the database... Certainly, in either event, a couple of redundant foo-unix servers would not break the bank of the Investigator and would have greatly been appreciated by the MAE-WEST RA user and provider community. Happy Trails, Tim --- And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear You shout and no one seems to hear And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. -Roger Waters
### On Sat, 1 Jun 1996 18:04:56 -0400 (EDT), Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) ### <nanog@linux.silkroad.com> wrote to flatline@ironhorse.com (Christopher ### E. Stefan) concerning "Re: MAE-West is up again ( RA Contract Value )": TB> it seems ironic that projects of such importance to the IP World can be TB> configured to not to withstand a single platform crash That statement is untrue. At all our production sites, the service can withstand a single platform crash. This is because we have redundancy at those exchange points. However, at MAE-West, there was only one machine operational. The lack of a redundant machine was what prohibited declaration of production status. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@Merit.Net> ]======================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | VOX: (313) 763-4907 FAX: (313) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +==[ Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/
TB> it seems ironic that projects of such importance to the IP World can be TB> configured to not to withstand a single platform crash Jake replies:
That statement is untrue. At all our production sites, the service can withstand a single platform crash. This is because we have redundancy at those exchange points. However, at MAE-West, there was only one machine operational. The lack of a redundant machine was what prohibited declaration of production status.
Jake, I am not passing judgment here nor trying to be antagonistic (I do however, *attempt* to use independent good judgment). It just appears to this chair, from observation of the situation, there were some IP customers peering with the MAE-WEST RA, and that when the server died, their was a panic to get it back on line because it effected their customers. Maybe this perception is incorrect and no one was effected or experienced a loss of service; in that event, agreed. But on the other hand, even though 'technically or administratively' MAE_WEST RA was of named status 'not-production'; when it crashed if it effected the daily production operation of networks, then questions and introspection are expected. Polemically speaking (as Aristotle might say), one could make some strong points that MAE-WEST was being 'productive' ;-) De facto vs. de jure... Again, I am not passing judgment, it just appears to me that on a $10,000,000 dollar program at an important exchange such as MAE-WEST (whatever the contractor chooses to call the status 'officially'); a little redundancy and prudent engineering and benefits the community. Best Regards, Tim ---
But on the other hand, even though 'technically or administratively' MAE_WEST RA was of named status 'not-production'; when it crashed if it effected the daily production operation of networks, then questions and introspection are expected.
Yo, Timster, Please reread the solicitation again carfully. I am not aware of any language that indicates MAE-WEST, housed at NASA-AMES or MFS-SanJose was part of the agreement. These systems were put there out of the good graces of ISI and MERIT. No-one was paying for them or thier on-going operations. When folks wanted to peer, they were explicitly told these were not production machines. Something that the RA team did on the side, with spare cycles, BECAUSE it was/is important. Now, lets look a bit more into that high dollar award, shall we? Reread that soliciation again. No where does it state that the RA gets a free ride at any of the NAPS. We have to pay, just like everyone else. And we have two connections, where most everyone else has one. And who is the RA paying, with our award dollars? Your right! Its your local telco/NAP operator. Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been talked down from that number, but it still would eat that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years. -- --bill
Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been talked down from that number, but it still would eat that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
--bill
Which one? Avi
Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been talked down from that number, but it still would eat that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
--bill
Which one?
Muckracking? Is this really germain to the topic? I don't think so. -- --bill
Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been talked down from that number, but it still would eat that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
--bill
Which one?
Muckracking? Is this really germain to the topic? I don't think so.
--bill
Well, I'm sure it's of interest to the NANOG community - and is germane to the topic of RA placement (if a NAP operator is trying to block placement of RA machines). Anyway, it's not a critical request-for-information, I was just curious. Avi
gee bill, accusing AVI of muck raking? must have been confusing him with me.... i think his question is very relevant...... how bout phrasing it differently? if ameritech, pac bell, mfs, or sprint were initially clueless (greedy?) enough to ask for $60,000 a month I can see why you might like to decline to embarrass the offender.... - *IF* such entity has become more reasonable in the meantime. so let me rephrase avi's question: what is the RA paying each NAP owner now?? this should be publicly disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW. ********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" *********************************************************************** On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been talked down from that number, but it still would eat that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
--bill
Which one?
Muckracking? Is this really germain to the topic? I don't think so.
--bill
Well, I'm sure it's of interest to the NANOG community - and is germane to the topic of RA placement (if a NAP operator is trying to block placement of RA machines).
Anyway, it's not a critical request-for-information, I was just curious.
Avi
gee bill, accusing AVI of muck raking? must have been confusing him with me....
Nope... You look very different.
so let me rephrase avi's question:
what is the RA paying each NAP owner now?? this should be publicly disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.
Check the published rates from the NAP Operators sales force and/or Web pages. --bill
oh come on Doug! I have learned a few things in the five years I have been doing my newsletter and one is that the baseball bat should be used until other efforts have failed. I would like to see what is on those web sites as to current prices and if I didn't have two consulting seminars with two huge players to get battened down in the next week, I'd take the time to do it myself. i'd certainly like to see the data. If anyone has it handy I wish they'd post it.....but if they don't I'll let this issue hang for a bit. I hate to admitt it but for the moment earning some good dollars comes first. ********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" *********************************************************************** On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Doug Humphrey wrote:
disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.
Sounds like it's FOIA time Gordon!
Doug
call it what you will! I meant to say **not** used until other efforts have failed. in the meantime, bill has just about stated that current rates are on web pages. As i said a moment ago it would be nice if someone would post them. I have also been told privately by a knowledgable source whom i know well and trust, that pricing info charged in a federal contract that the awardee consisders proprietary is NOT FOIAble. If this is an accurate reflection of reality, then I think the reality sucks. The NAPs are lacking in any effective oversight and I believe there is the possibility that some of the providers MIGHT be doing some strange things with pricing. I have heard some specific complaints about sprint.... but not in the last 90 days. If others are concerned about this I'd be happy to have their private mail. Depending on the outcome of that I'd certainly publish something, *if* there is something to be published. Please don't ask my definition of effective oversight. At the moment i haven't got one. ********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" *********************************************************************** On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Dorian Kim wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Gordon Cook wrote:
been doing my newsletter and one is that the baseball bat should be used until other efforts have failed.
Hmmmm... freudian garter, Gordon?
-dorian
call it what you will! I meant to say **not** used until other efforts have failed. in the meantime, bill has just about stated that current rates are on web pages. As i said a moment ago it would be nice if someone would post them.
Hum, I would expect that actual pricing may not be reflected on Web pages anymore. In fact Sprint does not have a web site for its NAP. The other pointer I recommended was the Sales Force(s) for each operator. They will be more than happy to provide quotes. Very likely the same quotes as provided to any of their other customers. -- --bill
Ah, thanks Bill. this is more useful. Interesting that it is the web pageless sprint nap that I have had the most complants about. Interesting that apparently connection prices are not quoted in a public place but available from the sales forces. this is beginning to get my attention. If ISPs would be willing to fax me written quotes they have gotten over the last few months, I would compile the data and report on what I find. could be a way of keeping the sales forces honest. since I haven't a clue as to who any of these guys are, i'd be delighted to hear from any NAP provider sales guys who are reading this list. Am i naive if I invite those Nap owners that the RA is paying for a connection and who feel they are charging the RA a fair price to report the amount of such price? ********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" *********************************************************************** On Mon, 3 Jun 1996 bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:
call it what you will! I meant to say **not** used until other efforts have failed. in the meantime, bill has just about stated that current rates are on web pages. As i said a moment ago it would be nice if someone would post them.
Hum, I would expect that actual pricing may not be reflected on Web pages anymore. In fact Sprint does not have a web site for its NAP.
The other pointer I recommended was the Sales Force(s) for each operator. They will be more than happy to provide quotes. Very likely the same quotes as provided to any of their other customers.
-- --bill
oh come on Doug! I have learned a few things in the five years I have been doing my newsletter and one is that the baseball bat should be used until other efforts have failed.
Well, some say that pleasant tones are better than baseball bats, at least until it's clear that the pleasant tones aren't going to get you anywhere. Avi
Interesting enough, you would *think* the NSF awardees would be happy to share their contractor-subcontract data to the public. Especially considering that these relationships were questioned by Congress back in 1992, and the conflict-of-interest issues surfaced. NSF did an internal study at the request of Congress that addressed many of the same NAP issues in 1992 that are just as relevant or more so in 1996. The internal study tried to correct the issues, made some recommendations, etc.; but the problem still remains by all accounts (just look at the NSF 4090 and 4091 awards and understand, a little, how IP Internetworking works.... rocket scientist knowledge *not required* and need not apply :-) Why is that? Because the US government does not demand better accountability from awardees. Because, again IMO, if the US gov made, as a conditio,n that all subcontract actuals must be reported to the sponsor (they are not) and made part of the public record (they are not), then it would be easy to see how the money flows and why, and *we all* could see for *ourselves* and think *for ourselves* and draw our own conclusions. This appears to be something that taxpapers should demand. How NAPs are funded, how RA research money is actually spent, how ICM money is subcontracted and to whom, how much money actually goes to YFRV, ad infinitum; it should be, but *is not* accessable public information unless the programs are specifically audited, and in that event, the audit is internal and the details are not made public. Why not make the contract-subcontract relationships and amounts public when public funds are being used? After all, if you can't manage and track the money you are spending, then the short answer is "better not award it". This begs an answer, IMO. The Internet just continues to spiral, not because of 'routing tables', but because of more fundamental business ethics issues. But by redirecting the focus to mundane technical issues, smoke-screening the flow of money issues and ethics issues.... life goes on. Tim -- And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear You shout and no one seems to hear And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. -Roger Waters
The FOIA may be viewed as a bat, but that is unfortunate. Public access to government information is vital to our democracy and laws like the FOIA and their state/local equivalents are important. There use in situations like this is only a reflection on the agency being 'queried'. I believe that public access to government information will become one of the greatest sources of 'influence' for us 'netizens'. Bravo for priming the pump... Doug Tooley (not the Doug below) On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Gordon Cook wrote:
oh come on Doug! I have learned a few things in the five years I have been doing my newsletter and one is that the baseball bat should be used until other efforts have failed.
I would like to see what is on those web sites as to current prices and if I didn't have two consulting seminars with two huge players to get battened down in the next week, I'd take the time to do it myself. i'd certainly like to see the data. If anyone has it handy I wish they'd post it.....but if they don't I'll let this issue hang for a bit. I hate to admitt it but for the moment earning some good dollars comes first.
********************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" ***********************************************************************
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Doug Humphrey wrote:
disclosable since it is paying with federal funds. Right? seems to me the important question is whether anyone is out of line NOW.
Sounds like it's FOIA time Gordon!
Doug
Bill relies: Now, lets look a bit more into that high dollar
award, shall we? Reread that solicitation again.
At the moment, I only have copies of the abstracts, BTW, and they do not state explicitly any locations, as you point out.
No where does it state that the RA gets a free ride at any of the NAPS. We have to pay, just like everyone else. And we have two connections, where most everyone else has one. And who is the RA paying, with our award dollars? Your right! Its your local telco/NAP operator.
Yes, good point, it would be interesting to examine core NSF 4090 and 4091 awards and look at the statistical breakdowns of how much money is actually going to development & hardware, and how much is going to transport. This would need to be done, however, not at the award level, but with the actuals. My intuition is that you are correct in your lament that a lot of money goes to transport and 'parking fees'. That is a good point BTW, because when looking at the dollar amounts of the NSF awards to the big telcos, it is possible to overlook the addition support (by providing transport, et. al. services) to other contracts and awards.
Just as a datapoint, one of them had set initial pricing at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been talked down from that number, but it still would eat that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
It appears, on the surface, if more people were actively participating in helping the busy NSF folks (and the US Taxpayers) find ways to reduce costs (such as transport and 'parking fees') everyone would benefit, except those who manage to bill the government (again, US taxpayers) retail rates at the enormous transport and connection fees. Since I have some free time, I volunteer to help by looking more closely at the actuals and providing interested parties with a comprehensive breakdown of how the 4090 and 4091 money actually flows. I'm sure the good NSF folks will be glad to point me to the right person there to examine the actuals; these are public funds, yes? After all, if we are spending ??? millions of dollars on transport and cannot afford to build a solid 'next generation' RA system and accessible NAPs (or just a few RAs at the existing NAPS) then it is reasonable and prudent to question the way the tax-dollar actuals are being allocated and spent. This appears to be a rational, equitable, and just approach. Best Regards, Tim
--bill
-- And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear You shout and no one seems to hear And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. -Roger Waters
Please reread the solicitation again carfully. I am not aware of any language that indicates MAE-WEST, housed at NASA-AMES or MFS-SanJose was part of the agreement. These systems were put there out of the good graces of ISI and MERIT. No-one was paying for them or thier on-going operations. When folks wanted to peer, they were explicitly told these were not production machines. Something that the RA team did on the side, with spare cycles, BECAUSE it was/is important.
Now, lets look a bit more into that high dollar award, shall we? Reread that soliciation again. No where does it state that the RA gets a free ride at any of the NAPS. We have to pay, just like everyone else. And we have two connections, where most everyone else has one. And who is the RA paying, with our award dollars? Your right! Its your local telco/NAP operator. Just as a datapoint, one of them had set inital pricing at $60,000.00 per MONTH per connection. They have been talked down from that number, but it still would eat that paltry 10M award in much less than 5 years.
The more intersesting question to me, would be one of what is the cost per user of the RA, and is a NAP/MAE with an RA a better serviec than one without. Two easy models for paying for RA services at MAEs/NAPs, are for the NAP/MAE operator pay for the RA service and fund that from interconnect fees. The other way, would be for the RA to collect fees from users, but then the RA would have to do collections, etc, and do a risk assumption which they aren't really in the position to do, like the commerical NAP/MAE operators are. I seem to remember this thing about wanting to move to a commerical based net from a government funded one. Of course having a RA service paid for by the users (directly or indirectly), would quickly give people some data points for the value of the service. I don't have my numbers handy, but average pricing for NAP/MAP varies between $5000-$10,000 for a >50mbps <200mbps connection. (Having just completed this in the past two days..) -- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-339-6094 http://www.fc.net
Warning: this is irrelevant to the stated charter of NANOG. Hit "D" now. I mean it. Don't read this. It's not about network operations.
This not just true for UNIX, a good friend of mine works out at Microsoft on the NT development team. He claims they've been seeing similar numbers on Alpha and Pentium Pro machines under Windows NT.
My experience differs significantly, but then my P/Pro is 200MHz and my Alpha is 333MHz. Microsoft probably has older Alphas and newer P/Pro's. Any of you installing Sun or Intel machines for netnews or shell or file service or anything else requiring good source code compatibility (barring 32-bit pointer assumptions such as those in the route servers) and large numbers of computrons are being silly. DEC would loan you an Alpha for a month to prove you wrong, since they know you won't be able to live without it and the chance of them having to take it back is small.
Following Paul's example, this is a warning that this is inappropriate for the list topic, hit "D" now ;-) I think that the MP HyperSPARC machines and in particular the new Ultras are doing Just Fine performance wise and legacy code wise. I've been working with them on a daily basis for a year and a half at Axil, which makes more Sparcs than anyone except Sun, and we keep pushing them further and further. Alphas have a lot going for them, but don't write SPARC off. It's made up its performance deficit from the early 90s. -george
On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Warning: this is irrelevant to the stated charter of NANOG. Hit "D" now.
I mean it. Don't read this. It's not about network operations.
My experience differs significantly, but then my P/Pro is 200MHz and my Alpha is 333MHz. Microsoft probably has older Alphas and newer P/Pro's.
However, since Pentium processors are CISC and Alphas are RISC, the difference in clock speed may _still_ yield similar performance since the Alphas have to execute _more_ instructions to accomplish similar amounts of "work" (on the average since some tasks are simple and some more complex). Don't get me wrong -- we love our Alphas (so far) and feel it's probably a more stable platform at this point since the Pro's are still fairly new. Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice) Professional Internet Services edm@nwnexus.WA.COM
participants (17)
-
Avi Freedman -
bmanning＠isi.edu -
Christopher E. Stefan -
Dorian Kim -
Doug Humphrey -
Doug Tooley -
Ed Morin -
George Herbert -
Gordon Cook -
Jake Khuon -
Jeremy Porter -
Michael Dillon -
Paul A Vixie -
Tim Bass -
Tim Bass -
Tim Bass -
Tim Bass