TO ALL NANOG PROPELLERHEAD TYPES MAKIN' REMARKS ON ATM: Da switch makers, ya know, dese guys had a problem. No matter how good business was, da stock keeps goin' down. Wid MPOA solvin' alla da problems, dey figured dis was unfair, dat dey should be solid, steadily growing stocks now dat dey no longer had to live life in da fast LANE. So, da ATM Forum has decided to sorta upgrade da public relations approach. Please be advised dat all youse geniusues makin' skeptical an' udderwise unsundry remarks on ATM is now subject to a personal interview from a special representative udda ATM Forum. On da boat. On a nice, long ocean voyage... (And alla youse gigabit ethernet wanks--ya know what we can do wid a little ether, heh, heh, heh!) Bill "The Mangler" Goldstein Chief Crusher and Mixer Dept. of Concrete Overshoes Enforcement Division The ATM Forum ;-) ---------- From: dlr Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 6:41 PM To: nanog Cc: dlr Subject: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP Received: from wayne1.bns.att.com (wayne1.bns.att.com [135.170.166.240]) by pawayn01.bns.att.com (8.8.6/1.3) with ESMTP id SAA13273 for <Goldstein_William/bcs_pawayn01@pawayn01.bns.att.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from caig1.att.att.com (caig1.att.att.com [192.128.52.73]) by wayne1.bns.att.com (8.7.3/2.5) with ESMTP id TAA19164 for <goldstein_william@bns.att.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:01:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from nuucp@localhost) by caig1.att.att.com (AT&T/GW-1.0) id SAA11015; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:21 -0500 (EST)

Received: by cagw1.att.com; Mon Mar 30 18:42 EST 1998 Received: by cagw1.att.com; Mon Mar 30 18:42 EST 1998 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA24784; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:07 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA24671 for nanog-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from daver.bungi.com (daver.bungi.com [207.126.97.2]) by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA24666 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by daver.bungi.com via sendmail with stdio id <m0yJoAm-0000DnC@daver.bungi.com> for nanog@merit.edu; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:41:00 -0800 (PST) (Smail-3.2.0.94 1997-Apr-22 #8 built 1997-Jun-19) Message-Id: <m0yJoAm-0000DnC@daver.bungi.com> From: dlr@bungi.com (Dave Rand) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:41:00 PST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Content-Type: text

Several of my peers at PB NAP are reporting significant loss (>10%) over the PB NAP. All are OC3 connected, and it seems that PB doesn't have the ability to look too closely at OC3 connections. Death of the 'net predicted: film at 11. So, does this mean that ATM NAPs also have problems with high traffic load? -- Dave Rand dlr@bungi.com http://www.bungi.com