Re: More demand or less supply?
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> writes:
Why is 2 to 3 times more capacity offline this year compared with previous years? I don't know. It appears the "supply" shortage is not due to increased demand, or even the lack of new power plant capacity; but due to the shutdown of existing capacity by generation companies at a higher rate than normal.
My understanding is that there is a seasonal "online / maint" cycle for the generation plants, and that many of them were not taken offline for normal PM several months ago because of energy usage _then_... my unsubstantiated guess would be that just like letting your car go 30,000 miles between a pair of oil changes, procrastination of the maint cycle eventually comes home to roost and that's what we're seeing now. ---Rob
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the "stability" of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example? Tim
At 08:04 AM 5/18/01 -0700, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the "stability" of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
i don't see where there's a problem if there is a single root, but in the cases where there are "add on" roots which a limited portion of the internet can see, or even worse, competing roots which are advertising competing versions of the same TLDs, the loss of symmetry has some significant implications for support and operations. for example, it will be possible to send mail to folks who cannot easily reply because they cannot resolve your domain name, or vice versa. this could dramatically affect support costs, especially at dial ISPs with lots of naive users who when, confronted with this problem, will call the support lines. likewise, when support staffs are confronted with problems that involve folks whose DNS they cannot see, or when they are seeing problems with one version of my.net.fred and their DNS is showing them a different resolution of my.net.fred, it's going to get messy and expensive. lower level staff will not be competent to handle these issues in many NOCs, leading to more escalations to higher tiers. clearance rates in call centers will decline. how bad this is will depend entirely on to what extent alternative TLDs penetrate in these scenarios. obviously this potential exists today, but hasn't had a significant effect that i'm aware of, becaue the penetration of the alternative TLDs is insignificant. if new.net or one of the others were to take off to any significant degree, this would likely change. i decline to guess what the increased support costs might amount to. will it be the end of the world? no. but will costs (and thus rates) go up? yes. richard -- Richard Welty Averill Park Networking rwelty@averillpark.net
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the "stability" of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
Uh, this is a Forbidden Topic on this list. Even one example could affect the stability of the Internet :-| -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the "stability" of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
Uh, this is a Forbidden Topic on this list. Even one example could affect the stability of the Internet :-|
all i have to add to this discussion is that i await the time when i can register index.html as a domain name. it seems to me that someone will miss the significance of that at some point in setting an "alternate root" and make really strange waves. -- |-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----| codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!" andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
Andrew Brown sez:
all i have to add to this discussion is that i await the time when i can register index.html as a domain name. it seems to me that someone will miss the significance of that at some point in setting an "alternate root" and make really strange waves.
Someone DID get "localhost.com" and bitched about the traffic... The old line about the kid who kills her parents and begs for mercy since she's a orphan comes to mind... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 08:45:11AM -0400, wb8foz@nrk.com mailed:
Andrew Brown sez:
all i have to add to this discussion is that i await the time when i can register index.html as a domain name. it seems to me that someone will miss the significance of that at some point in setting an "alternate root" and make really strange waves.
Someone DID get "localhost.com" and bitched about the traffic...
I was the owner of localhost.org for quite a while. I think in the four years I had it I received one email about it and that was from some pfy who didn't understand how nameservice worked. -- Bryan C. Andregg Smoke Jumper "As Slow as Possible, <bandregg@redhat.com> Red Hat, Inc. As Fast as Necessary." gpg 1024D/19893A19 A8DA 869A 037A C6B5 BF07 AB61 E406 414B 1989 3A19
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the "stability" of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
it's not the stability. it's more the compatibility. there's a large difference between the icann and new.net tld's which are being introduced. to be blunt, everyone (okay, not everyone) uses the same root servers to identitfy what zones to serve. i'd be suprised to see if anyone had any issues with the introduction (besides the heinous registration lottery) of the icann accredited tlds, it's more of an issue with new.net when your customer can't email his girlfriend at lolita@whore.house because you're not serving dot house. but please, if this thread continues, maybe let's stay on topic of the operational sense (if there are stability issues) and not relive the new.net threads of the past (compatibility).
Tim
-ken harris.
Ken Yes, I was asking specifically about "stability" (with a request that someone perhaps try to explain what that might mean other than a term to scare people with) rather than "compatibility". BTW, I don't think ".house" is a New.net TLD ;-) T ----- Original Message ----- From: "ken harris." <ken@boii.com> To: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <langdell@technologist.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:31 AM Subject: Re: Stability of the Internet?
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the
"stability"
of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
it's not the stability. it's more the compatibility.
there's a large difference between the icann and new.net tld's which are being introduced. to be blunt, everyone (okay, not everyone) uses the same root servers to identitfy what zones to serve. i'd be suprised to see if anyone had any issues with the introduction (besides the heinous registration lottery) of the icann accredited tlds, it's more of an issue with new.net when your customer can't email his girlfriend at lolita@whore.house because you're not serving dot house.
but please, if this thread continues, maybe let's stay on topic of the operational sense (if there are stability issues) and not relive the new.net threads of the past (compatibility).
Tim
-ken harris.
Most notions of "stability" are derived from a sense of steady state reachability or connectedness. The non-ICANN gTLDs create perturbations in portions of the net by changing the local semantics how to reach certain destinations. While these perturbations do not spread (due to policy), difference in the semantics of the perturbed network and the rest of the net cause a lack of reachability, creating disconnected networks, which destroy the "stability" of the net. -Subhendu -- On Fri, 18 May 2001, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
Ken
Yes, I was asking specifically about "stability" (with a request that someone perhaps try to explain what that might mean other than a term to scare people with) rather than "compatibility". BTW, I don't think ".house" is a New.net TLD ;-)
T
----- Original Message ----- From: "ken harris." <ken@boii.com> To: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <langdell@technologist.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:31 AM Subject: Re: Stability of the Internet?
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the
"stability"
of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
it's not the stability. it's more the compatibility.
there's a large difference between the icann and new.net tld's which are being introduced. to be blunt, everyone (okay, not everyone) uses the same root servers to identitfy what zones to serve. i'd be suprised to see if anyone had any issues with the introduction (besides the heinous registration lottery) of the icann accredited tlds, it's more of an issue with new.net when your customer can't email his girlfriend at lolita@whore.house because you're not serving dot house.
but please, if this thread continues, maybe let's stay on topic of the operational sense (if there are stability issues) and not relive the new.net threads of the past (compatibility).
Tim
-ken harris.
This is a bit like using IP addresses within private networks. We have RFC1918 to specify some addresses which are specifically not routable on public networks to minimize this confusion. That doesn't mean that some people don't use unallocated (or even allocated) addresses within private networks... Perhaps we need a tld or a group of tld's which are analogous to RFC1918 addresses? On Fri, 18 May 2001, Subhendu Ghosh wrote:
Most notions of "stability" are derived from a sense of steady state reachability or connectedness. The non-ICANN gTLDs create perturbations in portions of the net by changing the local semantics how to reach certain destinations. While these perturbations do not spread (due to policy), difference in the semantics of the perturbed network and the rest of the net cause a lack of reachability, creating disconnected networks, which destroy the "stability" of the net.
-Subhendu
Perhaps we need a tld or a group of tld's which are analogous to RFC1918 addresses?
This has been brought up a couple of times, but there are some pretty big issues with it. When somebody says "like RFC1918" you also need to include "problems with RFC1918" in that scope. For example, private domain names allow for local reuse of global identifiers that collide in nasty ways. What happens with RFC1918 addresses when two orgs use the same global identifiers locally and then need to interconnect: somebody has to renumber. The same is true for .pri (or whatever) domain names, in that Cowboy Hats, Inc. and Cowboy Boots, Inc. may both setup cowboy.pri domains, when they merge they have to do a lot more work which means that any original savings (of which there are none, if any) would have been lost. Also like RFC1918, private domain names will leak out in unexpected ways causing various problems. Cache poisoning was bad enough, it would become horrific with overlapping domains. There is some (as yet unpublished) research data that says ~20% of the queries currently going to the root servers are for invalid TLDs (as setup by .private internal operators). Endorsing the use of private domains will make this much worse. The best solution -- just like with addresses -- is to use real domains. Advocating private domains causes more problems than it would solve. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:
There is some (as yet unpublished) research data that says ~20% of the queries currently going to the root servers are for invalid TLDs (as setup by .private internal operators). Endorsing the use of private domains will make this much worse.
There was some mention (cue bill) at the last IETF about an endorsement of '.int' for internal networks by some insert-dns-clueless-company-here. which of course sends (significant?) unwanted traffic towards the .int nameservers. A better step would be to thoroughly endorse .private or similar, and have the distributed root.hints file point it back to the local nameserver, so such dns traffic does not end up on the cruel and heartless internet. Of course, lack of clue when setting up internal networks will always happen (such as allowing those queries out, or not setting up a correct private tree off your regular domain etc etc). --==-- Bruce. IMHO of course ;)
On Mon, 21 May 2001 15:40:47 EDT, Bruce Campbell <bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au> said:
A better step would be to thoroughly endorse .private or similar, and have the distributed root.hints file point it back to the local nameserver, so such dns traffic does not end up on the cruel and heartless internet.
Did you mean "127.0.0.1" as "the local nameserver", or did you mean "some magic to direct it to the same IP as the nameserver is listening on"? It's quite possible that the nameserver running on the local machine isn't actually listening on the loopback address. Of course, in this case, routing .private to 127.0.0.1 might be considered a feature, not a bug.. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Steve Schaefer wrote:
Perhaps we need a tld or a group of tld's which are analogous to RFC1918 addresses?
RFC 2606 is I think what you are looking for. -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall@ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon@darkmere.gen.nz ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
Perhaps we need a tld or a group of tld's which are analogous to RFC1918 addresses?
I concur, it's elegantly easy and follows with accepted prior ways of dealing with things. The only hard part id everyone agreeing on the tld(s). Internally, we use: .local Yea, I know it's long, more than 3 chars but it works.
Based on the email address, this was probably a troll. We're Sorry, but you can no longer log in via the technologist.com hostname. Please log in at http://www.iname.com from now on. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused you. Thank you for stopping by. Anyway, the fact that some of us now block BGP acceptance for the new.net blocks, because it causes us support costs, would be an argument that the Internet is less "stable". "Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:
Yes, I was asking specifically about "stability" (with a request that someone perhaps try to explain what that might mean other than a term to scare people with) rather than "compatibility". BTW, I don't think ".house" is a New.net TLD ;-)
Does that include blocking nameservers that respond authoritatively for those TLD's? Oh wait, that probably doesn't matter since I saw a certain company featured on FC yesterday... William Allen Simpson wrote:
Anyway, the fact that some of us now block BGP acceptance for the new.net blocks, because it causes us support costs, would be an argument that the Internet is less "stable".
William, I can assure you I am not a "troll". As most people know, I am the ex-CTO (note, "ex") of New.Net. Come to think of it that might cause you to classify me as a "troll" -- but that would be your choice, I guess. So, an increase in support costs is "instability"? I am not sure I get that ... Tim ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Stability of the Internet?
Based on the email address, this was probably a troll.
We're Sorry, but you can no longer log in via the technologist.com
hostname.
Please log in at http://www.iname.com from now on.
We regret any inconvenience this may have caused you. Thank you for
stopping by.
Anyway, the fact that some of us now block BGP acceptance for the new.net blocks, because it causes us support costs, would be an argument that the Internet is less "stable".
"Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:
Yes, I was asking specifically about "stability" (with a request that someone perhaps try to explain what that might mean other than a term to scare people with) rather than "compatibility". BTW, I don't think
".house"
is a New.net TLD ;-)
William Allen Simpson
Anyway, the fact that some of us now block BGP acceptance for the new.net blocks, because it causes us support costs, would be an argument that the Internet is less "stable".
If it is, it is because they ("some of us") are unwilling to support their customers' use of the Internet, not because of New.net. If they decide that IRC is increasing support costs, will they block port 6666+? How about Napster, did any of them block that one? I think they are blocking New.net for some other reason, and are being dishonest claiming increased support costs as the justification. There are plenty of other services on the Internet - like Napster, or any MP3 trading service, especially with all the DMCA notifications that are flying around - that can increase support costs. Why not just block all of them and save even more money? I'm not particularly fond of New.net, but I am even less fond of nerds on power trips who think they know what's good for the (l)users. Blocking new.net is, in fact, censorship, not a cost saving measure.
"Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:
Yes, I was asking specifically about "stability" (with a request that someone perhaps try to explain what that might mean other than a term to scare people with) rather than "compatibility". BTW, I don't
think ".house"
is a New.net TLD ;-)
I hear this same argument from clients who want me to unblock Napster. If you look at the definition of censorship, it becomes fairly clear that when a private company decides to block certain types of content from its private network, that is not censorship. In order to "censor" Napster, or new.net, or anything else, I would have to block (or at least attempt to block) every possible access to it, rather than simply blocking it from my company's private network. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=censor At 04:22 PM 5/18/01 -0700, Mike Batchelor wrote:
Blocking new.net is, in fact, censorship, not a cost saving measure.
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote: Hrmm, I don't know if this is a perfectly good example of how the "stability" of the Internet is gonna be affected. In my most humble opinion, I think it means that the addition of these new >3 letters gTLDs will not be transparent to users. This is due to many factors, among those are software writers. I believe that there are many software packages that will fumble when they encounter >3 gTDLs, and some have the com/net/org/k12/edu/mil/gov (and sometimes `int' too) hardcoded as the "legal" gTLDs. This means that these software packages will actually break, and will need to be updated, patched, or replaced, if the software vendor is either no longer in existance, or for example, a software version for your particular OS is no longer manufactured or supported (there are many examples of that in the academic world for instance). my 2 cents, --Ariel
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the "stability" of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single exampleof how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
Tim
-- Ariel Biener e-mail: ariel@post.tau.ac.il PGP(6.5.8) public key http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 06:42:30PM +0300, Ariel Biener wrote:
factors, among those are software writers. I believe that there are many software packages that will fumble when they encounter >3 gTDLs, and some have the com/net/org/k12/edu/mil/gov (and sometimes `int' too) hardcoded as the "legal" gTLDs. This means that these software packages will actually break, and will need to be updated, patched, or replaced, if the
Those packages are already broken. A little more won't hurt. I mean, WTF do they do if you type perfectly legal domain names like co.uk?
Whether you agree or not, I'd of though that the issues of stability or rather the problems created with setting up new roots was very obvious to anyone of a technical background? Example 1) Most of the Internet resolves one set of addresses, a subset resolves a different set. Like dialling a phone number and it ringing a different person depending on which phone company you use. Steve On Fri, 18 May 2001, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the "stability" of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
Tim
-- Stephen J. Wilcox IP Services Manager, Opal Telecom http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ Tel: 0161 222 2000 Fax: 0161 222 2008
And the addition of new TLDs would cause instability because ....? I am not sure I understand your point. And also, who said anything about setting up new roots? There are a host (sorry for pun) of ways of introducing new TLDs without adding new roots. For instance the New.Net approach and the addition of new ccTLDs and the addition of new gTLDs via ICANN/DoC (.biz, .info, etc). The core question remains, why would the addition of a new TLD per se (that is, in and of itself) lead to or be possibly likely to lead to "instability" of the Internet? TL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk> To: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <langdell@technologist.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:54 AM Subject: Re: Stability of the Internet?
Whether you agree or not, I'd of though that the issues of stability or rather the problems created with setting up new roots was very obvious to anyone of a technical background?
Example 1) Most of the Internet resolves one set of addresses, a subset resolves a different set. Like dialling a phone number and it ringing a different person depending on which phone company you use.
Steve
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the
"stability"
of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
Tim
-- Stephen J. Wilcox IP Services Manager, Opal Telecom http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ Tel: 0161 222 2000 Fax: 0161 222 2008
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 01:16:12PM -0700, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
new roots? There are a host (sorry for pun) of ways of introducing new TLDs without adding new roots. For instance the New.Net approach and the addition
The New.Net approach doesn't add new TLDs. It is an application solution, piggybacked on existing TLDs. It essentially consists of replacing DNS with something else, that unfortunately still requires DNS to function. It is, in a word, parasitic.
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Shawn McMahon wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 01:16:12PM -0700, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
new roots? There are a host (sorry for pun) of ways of introducing new TLDs without adding new roots. For instance the New.Net approach and the addition
The New.Net approach doesn't add new TLDs. It is an application solution, piggybacked on existing TLDs.
Incorrect. There are multiple ways in which to enable access, one of them is with an application, the other method involves reconfiguration of DNS servers/resolvers. When a registration happens, a user receives two registrations: one in the TLD that they are registering under, and one under TLD.new.net for compatibility with the legacy root system. I'm choosing to stay out of the rest of this argument as it has been beaten to death previously, but wanted to clear up technical misstatements/misunderstandings.
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 08:04:14AM -0700, Tim Langdell, PhD exclaimed:
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the "stability" of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?
can we PLEASE not start this holy war again? The last thread was more than long enough to contain every perspective under the sun ... check the archives at nanog.org if you need a refresher.
Tim
-- Scott Francis scott@ [work:] v i r t u a l i s . c o m Systems Analyst darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t West Coast Network Ops GPG keyid 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
From: rs@seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: 18 May 2001 10:11:44 -0400 Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> writes:
Why is 2 to 3 times more capacity offline this year compared with previous years? I don't know. It appears the "supply" shortage is not due to increased demand, or even the lack of new power plant capacity; but due to the shutdown of existing capacity by generation companies at a higher rate than normal.
My understanding is that there is a seasonal "online / maint" cycle for the generation plants, and that many of them were not taken offline for normal PM several months ago because of energy usage _then_... my unsubstantiated guess would be that just like letting your car go 30,000 miles between a pair of oil changes, procrastination of the maint cycle eventually comes home to roost and that's what we're seeing now.
As with everything in the California energy situation, it's more complex than it seems. 1. There was likely substantial manipulation of the natural gas market last winter. (Both the courts and congress are looking at this and there is a "smoking gun" that indicates that the controlling natural gas distributor was holding back on delivery to force prices up.) 2. The amount many small generators were paid for power was contractually fixed so that when gas prices sky-rocketed, the generators could not afford to sell power to the ISO. This was made far worse when PG&E and So. Cal. Edison got into trouble and stopped paying ANYTHING which forced more small generators to shut down. 3. The state is now claiming evidence that, when the tight electrical market appeared, large generators took plants off-line for unscheduled and unneeded maintenance, forcing the crisis and shooting prices on the spot market to obscene levels. Power that Reliant was selling previously for was suddenly selling for over $1500 and California paid rather than have black-outs. In retrospect, this was probably a bad choice, but the state was very determined to avoid blackouts. As a result we still had blackouts (albeit fewer) and the state has spent over $6 billion which has drained the treasury and will soon result in the sale of bonds to keep the state solvent. Add to this a long scheduled shutdown of half of the largest power plant in the state (Diablo Canyon) for refueling, and you have a LOT of generating capacity off-line. I have avoided pointing fingers except where formal, public allegations of specific wrong-doing have been made. I have also skipped the Cal-ISO structure which invites price manipulation and the politics of power which promised windfall profits for PG&E and Edison but, instead, led to massive losses and, for Pacific Gas and Electric, to bankruptcy. I have not mentioned Texas/Washington (D.C.) politics or Washington/Oregon rainfall (or the lack thereof) which has resulted in a huge decline in available hydro-electric power. There is plenty of blame for most of those involved and it looks likely to get a lot worse before it gets better. We have a new, large emergency generator to be installed shortly. :-( But the lights are still on and I'll be using Arizona power to keep cool for a few days. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
participants (25)
-
Albert Meyer -
Andrew Brown -
Ariel Biener -
Bruce Campbell -
Bryan C. Andregg -
Eric A. Hall -
Jim Dixon -
ken harris. -
Kevin Loch -
Kevin Oberman -
Mike Batchelor -
mike harrison -
Patrick Greenwell -
Richard Welty -
rs＠seastrom.com -
Scott Francis -
Shawn McMahon -
Simon Lyall -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Steve Schaefer -
Subhendu Ghosh -
Tim Langdell, PhD -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
wb8foz＠nrk.com -
William Allen Simpson