Re: US-Asia Peering
Theres an increasing number of psuedo-wire connections tho, you could regard these L2 extensions an extension of the switch as a whole making it international. Thats not really applicable in my view, the psuedo-wire is no different to a long fibre extension and they are only used to connect specific parties not IXP's. Regards, Neil.
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Jan 10 21:49:53 2003 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
03-01-03117672 85180
04-01-03117848 85149
05-01-03117767 85091
06-01-03117793 85127
07-01-03117802 85131
08-01-03117947 85108
09-01-03118044 85215
10-01-03118118 85385
AS Summary
14310 Number of ASes in routing system
5626 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
1606 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS701 : ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc.
73048064 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS568 : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 10Jan03 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 118165853033286227.8% All ASes
AS3908 1175 684 49141.8% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc.
AS18566 4225 41798.8% COVAD Covad Communications
AS7018 1450 1035 41528.6% ATT-INTERNET4 ATT WorldNet
Services
AS701 1606 1193 41325.7% ALTERNET-AS UUNET
Technologies, Inc.
AS4323 526 188 33864.3% TW-COMM Time Warner
Communications, Inc.
AS7843 628 291 33753.7% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp.
AS6197 458 150 30867.2% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS1221 1145 844 30126.3% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd
AS1239 968 679 28929.9% SPRINTLINK Sprint
AS6347 369 85 28477.0% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications
Corporation
AS4355 406 135 27166.7% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC
AS7046 554 286 26848.4% UUNET-CUSTOMER UUNET
Technologies, Inc.
AS22927 289 22 26792.4% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE
ARGENTINA
AS705426 186 24056.3% ASN-ALTERNET UUNET
Technologies, Inc.
AS4814 251 15 23694.0% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China
Telecom (Group)
AS1 661 439 22233.6% GNTY-1 Genuity
AS6198 422 200 22252.6% BATI-MIA BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS17676 229 24 20589.5% GIGAINFRA XTAGE CORPORATION
AS22291 227 29 19887.2% CHARTER-LA Charter
Communications
AS690513 319 19437.8% MERIT-AS-27 Merit Network Inc.
AS4151 328 136 19258.5% USDA-1 USDA
AS209518 330 18836.3% ASN-QWEST Qwest
AS6140 314 126 18859.9% IMPSAT-USA ImpSat
AS4134 290 107 18363.1% ERX-CHINALINK Data
Communications Bureau
AS852627 445 18229.0% ASN852 Telus Advanced
Communications
AS2048 260 87 17366.5% LANET-1 State of Louisiana
AS2386 381 222 15941.7% INS-AS ATT Data
Communications Services
AS6327 185 34 15181.6% SHAWFIBER Shaw Fiberlink
Limited
AS17557 323 179 14444.6% PKTELECOM-AS-AP Pakistan
Telecom
AS3215 315 175 14044.4% AS3215 France Telecom
Transpac
Total 16266 8650 761646.8% Top 30 total
Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report
Copies of this report are mailed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
If not there, how about Florida? http://www.napoftheamericas.net/ -- Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: US-Asia Peering Research Request
I remember back at APRICOT in 1999 that some folks (Dave Rand and colleagues maybe?) were talking about an initiative to provide an AP Peering Ring... Just out of curiosity on this topic. Is there anyone who ever managed to get a distributed peering point to work? If I remember history somewhat correct, the first attempt was D-GIX back in 1993(?). That failed (if Peter or someone else who was at KTHNOC back then is reading maybe you can give the facts), and I think I know of 3-4 other attempts that failed. Anyone care to shed any light on this? Best regards, - kurtis -
Re: US-Asia Peering
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Neil J. McRae wrote: Theres an increasing number of psuedo-wire connections tho, you could regard these L2 extensions an extension of the switch as a whole making it international. Thats not really applicable in my view, the psuedo-wire is no different to a long fibre extension and they are only used to connect specific parties not IXP's. Sure, purpose is different but functionally the pseudowire is the same as the exchange, a collection of L2 devices and either has the potential in the event of a L2 issue (arp storm, STP) to affect the other in the absence f any L3 boundary. The fact that it only connects a single device is arbitrary. In response to Randy and Bill(s), this seems to come down to a trade off of commercial vs technical. A lot of us agree this is technically not the best way and produces instabilities with the potential to take out major chunks of internet but it is cheap and this means people will adopt this way of doing it, unfortunately as this has now happened it means those opposed to the idea will have to also consider this as an option if they are to compete. The growing number of things in the Internet business which nowadays need to more cheap and less technically sound is something I find disheartening. Steve
Re: NYT on Thing.net
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, batz wrote: I suppose that any ISP can turn off a connection they deem a threat to the rest of their operations, but I think this incident can serve as an example of how ISP's can get dragged into political spats. It shows how Verio was manipulated by Dow to squelch critics Uhm. If an ISP has a policy catch-all clause of We can disconnect customers at will, without reason then you get what you deserve, responsibility for your actions. After a few big money costing lawsuits over this, I hope ISP's will return to their common-carrier status. I have no hopes that they will do so from a moral or ethical point of viwe, but let's hope they do so from a commercial point of view. If as an ISP, you don't want to get involved, it is very simple - Only take action based on court decisions (or in the case of the US, also DMCA requests and DMCA notice expirations) - If a third party wants any information/decision against a customer, make them indemnify you for any consequences their legal action will have on you, the ISP. This way, you're out of the loop, let the parties fight each other in court, and do whatever the judge tells you to do, without the risk of getting sued by one of the parties involved for your (in)actions. With policies like that, you can host things like say, http://xenu.net/ without getting sued by even such trigger happy people as Scientology O:) Paul
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
I know that ATT and WorldCom both have pops in San Juan. I'm not familiar with T-data. If you're looking for robustness, go with Miami: pretty much everyone has a pop there. David Barak fully RFC 1925 compliant --- Ray Burkholder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I work for an ISP in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands. (If you happen to pass through, drop by for a visit). Anyway, ATT has undersea fibre to Puerto Rico. We want to get a DS3 into a Puerto Rico peering center where we can get connectivity to some combo of ATT, Sprint, Worldcom, and T-Data. Is anyone familiar with such a location in PR? If not there, how about Florida? Ray Burkholder __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof. (fwd)
Hey, Your best bet is to go with Miami, although it may be a bit expensive to get longhaul circuits to there.. Miami is the closest major bandwidth place from your location.. They even have internet exchange over there on behalf of South and Central American based ISP's. -hc -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 06:00:57 -0500 From: Ray Burkholder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof. I work for an ISP in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands. (If you happen to pass through, drop by for a visit). Anyway, ATT has undersea fibre to Puerto Rico. We want to get a DS3 into a Puerto Rico peering center where we can get connectivity to some combo of ATT, Sprint, Worldcom, and T-Data. Is anyone familiar with such a location in PR? If not there, how about Florida? Ray Burkholder
RE: frame relay to atm conversion tool?
I came across a decent Cisco article that discusses how to calculate traffic shaping parameters for links that are on one end ATM and the other Frame relay. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/121/frf8_shaping.html The second to the last paragraph in that article suggests that ATM SCR's should be shaped at 15-20% higher than Frame CIR's. But there is no corresponding conclusion about how to equate burst space. There's been a few responses from people interested in helping get a tool together to make these calculations simpler and more accurate. I'm still seeking comments on this though so if you've got something to add, please do! Once I feel like we've choked out enough comments to get to work on this, I'll contact those interested parties offline about next steps. Thanks, BM -Original Message- From: Peter E. Fry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: frame relay to atm conversion tool? On 9 Jan 2003 at 17:45, Swaminathan, Sekar wrote: Instead of Frame Relay frames, you have to look at the payload which is usually IP packets. Here is the formula that I would use: [...] Specifying an average packet size is rough: I've observed that on an average Internet connection around 35% of packets are 64 bytes, 35% 1500 bytes, and the remainder scattered about. The average is guaranteed to be a poor match for at least 70% of your traffic. Not that it matters. Most carriers configure FRATM VCCs as 1536kbps frame relay = 4500cps, treating fractions accordingly. The last thing you want to do is exceed this cell rate (around 1710kbps at a 1500-byte packet size), as on a policed link you'll lose nonconforming cells. (Actually, a 1536kb frame relay seems to be closer to a 1705kb ATM VCC. Eh, the IWF has to buffer some anyway.) If you increase your cell rates you potentially oversubscribe your frame link (and the IWF may disallow it in any case). So if you're tempted to exceed this ratio be very certain of your link characteristics. Add to that: when a sustained rate is defined (VBR service category) the ATM peak rate probably doesn't mean what you would expect, so I recommend sustained = peak. (ABR is the best match for data, but isn't often used.) As to the original question, I wouldn't recommend translating a burstable frame to ATM unless you can order an ABR VCC or get UPC and/or frame discard disabled on your link (don't bet on it). It's not likely you can match parameters, so without flow control you're essentially looking at reduced performance or packet loss under load. Whatever you do get, I recommend you ask your carrier for a spec. You have plenty of variables and relatively robust protocols, meaning you could take a shot, miss, and only find out for certain that you had when you'd really rather not. Get it reasonably right, though, and it'll do right by you. Huh. Now that I look at it, I need to rethink my own figures yet again (I haven't even implemented the last rethink) as I appear to have tended toward the conservative in some areas. Grrr. Take it easy. Peter E. Fry
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof. (fwd)
Does Arcos hit the USVI? http://www.nwncable.com/ Their pricing looks good and they are close by to NAP of the Americas. Jeremy - Original Message - From: Haesu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:14 AM Subject: Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof. (fwd) Hey, Your best bet is to go with Miami, although it may be a bit expensive to get longhaul circuits to there.. Miami is the closest major bandwidth place from your location.. They even have internet exchange over there on behalf of South and Central American based ISP's. -hc -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 06:00:57 -0500 From: Ray Burkholder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof. I work for an ISP in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands. (If you happen to pass through, drop by for a visit). Anyway, ATT has undersea fibre to Puerto Rico. We want to get a DS3 into a Puerto Rico peering center where we can get connectivity to some combo of ATT, Sprint, Worldcom, and T-Data. Is anyone familiar with such a location in PR? If not there, how about Florida? Ray Burkholder
Peering BOF VI at NANOG
Hi all - If you are not a Peering Coordinator attending NANOG 27 then you needn't read any further. The 6th Peering BOF at NANOG will be held Monday night and focuses on helping Peering Coordinators make contact with other Peering Coordinators using Peering Personals. We solicit Peering Coordinators (via this e-mail), asking them to characterize their networks and peering policies in general ways (content heavy or access (eyeball) -heavy, Multiple Points Required or Will Peer anywhere, Peering with Content OK, etc.). From the answers we will select a set of ISP Peering Coordinators to present a 2-3 minute description of their network, what they look for in a peer, etc., allowing the audience to put a face with the name of the ISP. At the end of the Peering BOF, Peering Coordinators will have time to speak with Peering Coordinators of ISPs they seek to interconnect with. The expectation is that these interactions will lead to the Peering Negotiations stage, the first step towards a more fully meshed and therefore resilient Internet. If you are a Peering Coordinator and wish to participate in this BOF, please fill out the following form and e-mail it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Subject: Peering BOF VI . Name: Title: Company: AS#: Check each that applies: ___ We are an ISP (sell access to the Internet) -- OR -- ___ We are a Non-ISP (content company, etc.) ___ We are Content-Heavy -- OR -- ___ We are Access-Heavy ___ Peering with Content Players or Content Heavy ISPs is OK by us ___ We generally require peering in multiple locations ___ We will peer with anyone in any single location ___ We have huge volumes of traffic (lots of users and/or lots of content) (huge: 1 Gbps total outbound traffic to peers and transit providers) ___ We have a global network ___ We require Contracts for Peering Current Peering Locations: ___ Planned (3-6 mos) Peering Locations: ___ See you in Phoenix! Bill PS - This form is also on the NANOG web page at: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/norton.html --- William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 650.315.8635 Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison Equinix, Inc.
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Ray Burkholder wrote: Anyway, ATT has undersea fibre to Puerto Rico. We want to get a DS3 into a Puerto Rico peering center where we can get connectivity to some combo of ATT, Sprint, Worldcom, and T-Data. Is anyone familiar with such a location in PR? I can say with reasonable certainty that one does not exist. http://www.pch.net/resources/data/exchange-points/ is the list, and we don't have anything in there for Puerto Rico, which means that there hasn't been one in the past, none presently that we know of, none in the planning stages that we know of, and no unsubstantiated rumors of one. If not there, how about Florida? As many people have pointed out, NOTA, the NAP of the Americas, in Miami, is probably your best bet. -Bill
Re: US-Asia Peering Research Request
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: Just out of curiosity on this topic. Is there anyone who ever managed to get a distributed peering point to work? If I remember history somewhat correct, the first attempt was D-GIX back in 1993(?). That failed (if Peter or someone else who was at KTHNOC back then is reading maybe you can give the facts), and I think I know of 3-4 other attempts that failed. There's a threshold, defined by a step-function in the price-per-distance of layer-1 services. If you follow that step-function like a line on a topo map until it reconnects with itself, it forms a convex space. Interconnection of switch fabrics within that space is necessary to their success and long-term survival, whereas interconnection of switch fabrics across the border of that space is detrimental to their success and ultimately to their survival. -Bill
Cascading(?)Failures Revisited
Recently came across the paper below on the Los ALamos site and it addresses a topic discussed earlier about how traffic is redistributed when a node is compromised. When the researchers included capacity loads in their equations they find some pretty severe consequences (3000 of 5000 disconnected by one nodal failure in the simulation), but the (real-world) analysis is done on the AS network and I believe there was talk of cascading failures not applying to the Internet in the first place. I was curious what assumptions the folks on NANOG would suggest if you were trying to model how traffic would be redistributed in the event of a node or mulitple node failure. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Cascade-based attacks on complex networks http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0301/0301086.pdf We live in a modern world supported by large, complex networks. Examples range from financial markets to communication and transportation systems. In many realistic situations the flow of physical quantities in the network, as characterized by the loads on nodes, is important. We show that for such networks where loads can redistribute among the nodes, intentional attacks can lead to a cascade of overload failures, which can in turn cause the entire or a substantial part of the network to collapse. This is relevant for real-world networks that possess a highly heterogeneous distribution of loads, such as the Internet and power grids. We demonstrate that the heterogeneity of these networks makes them particularly vulnerable to attacks in that a large-scale cascade may be triggered by disabling a single key node. This brings obvious concerns on the security of such systems.
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
Actually I know there was something of an IX starting down there about 1999. I believe it was in the small cellular companies facility. One of the guys from Netrail, Nathan Estes, went down to help them out for a week. The name escapes me but perhaps he could post it here if he recalls the details. At the time they had about 6 muxed T1s if I remember and were looking at either bringing in a tier1 or getting a DS3 back to the states. David At 9:23 -0800 1/10/03, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Ray Burkholder wrote: Anyway, ATT has undersea fibre to Puerto Rico. We want to get a DS3 into a Puerto Rico peering center where we can get connectivity to some combo of ATT, Sprint, Worldcom, and T-Data. Is anyone familiar with such a location in PR? I can say with reasonable certainty that one does not exist. http://www.pch.net/resources/data/exchange-points/ is the list, and we don't have anything in there for Puerto Rico, which means that there hasn't been one in the past, none presently that we know of, none in the planning stages that we know of, and no unsubstantiated rumors of one. If not there, how about Florida? As many people have pointed out, NOTA, the NAP of the Americas, in Miami, is probably your best bet. -Bill
Re: NYT on Thing.net
On 2003-01-09-13:13:23, batz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I suppose that any ISP can turn off a connection they deem a threat to the rest of their operations, but I think this incident can serve as an example of how ISP's can get dragged into political spats. It shows how Verio was manipulated by Dow to squelch critics, but also how their incident response was used to martyr the ISP they shut down. thing.net is located at 601 West 26th Street in New York City, a building split about evenly between carrier facilities and commercial office space. Around the time their squabbles with Verio took place, they were approached by building neighbors aware of their struggles, offering backup connectivity on favorable terms. In reading this and other articles, it seems to me they're more interested in complaining to the media about so-called impiety on Verio's part, than acquiring alternate connectivity and retaining their subscriber base. Of course, I could be off-base, in which case I encourage others privy to more details of the situation to speak up. Regards, -a
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
I have some history of that effort. It did not gain traction and folded in less than a year. Actually I know there was something of an IX starting down there about 1999. I believe it was in the small cellular companies facility. One of the guys from Netrail, Nathan Estes, went down to help them out for a week. The name escapes me but perhaps he could post it here if he recalls the details. At the time they had about 6 muxed T1s if I remember and were looking at either bringing in a tier1 or getting a DS3 back to the states. David At 9:23 -0800 1/10/03, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Ray Burkholder wrote: Anyway, ATT has undersea fibre to Puerto Rico. We want to get a DS3 into a Puerto Rico peering center where we can get connectivity to some combo of ATT, Sprint, Worldcom, and T-Data. Is anyone familiar with such a location in PR? I can say with reasonable certainty that one does not exist. http://www.pch.net/resources/data/exchange-points/ is the list, and we don't have anything in there for Puerto Rico, which means that there hasn't been one in the past, none presently that we know of, none in the planning stages that we know of, and no unsubstantiated rumors of one. If not there, how about Florida? As many people have pointed out, NOTA, the NAP of the Americas, in Miami, is probably your best bet. -Bill
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
However, NOTA doesn't have either ATT or WorldCom... so if you don't mind using other carriers, there were a bunch of medium-size players, and I believe a couple of large ones there. David Barak fully RFC 1925 compliant. --- Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As many people have pointed out, NOTA, the NAP of the Americas, in Miami, is probably your best bet. -Bill __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
The helpful guy at NOTA indicated that ATT does have significant presence there. Worldcom is hidden in there somewhere as well. The only one that didn't have direct presence was T-Data, but was accessible through a different hop. I think the location fits my needs quite nicely based upon initial communications. Now it just comes down to logistics and negotiation. -Original Message- From: David Barak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 10, 2003 15:50 To: Bill Woodcock; Ray Burkholder Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof. However, NOTA doesn't have either ATT or WorldCom... so if you don't mind using other carriers, there were a bunch of medium-size players, and I believe a couple of large ones there. David Barak fully RFC 1925 compliant. --- Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As many people have pointed out, NOTA, the NAP of the Americas, in Miami, is probably your best bet. -Bill __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
However, NOTA doesn't have either ATT or WorldCom... so, did any of the much-ballyhooed florida (misnomered) naps actually manage to attract the significant (== big tier-1) isps? randy
RE: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
so, did any of the much-ballyhooed florida (misnomered) naps actually manage to attract the significant (== big tier-1) isps? http://www.napoftheamericas.net/membersrepresentativecustomerlist.cfm http://www.napoftheamericas.net/memberscarriers.cfm are they connected and peering, i.e. packets moving, or just paying rent? randy
fast ethernet limits
Hi NANOG, Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom of the building (in the telco room) to the top of the building. We have cisco switches on either end and we are seeing about 5-20% packet loss on the trunk. Are we running into a distance limitation of fast ethernet, or are we suffering from another problem? I read that 328 feet is the limitation of fast ethernet. Is there anything short of getting a repeater for the cable run that I can do to boost the signal? TIA for your help. Ciao. Steve Rude
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
On Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:08:08PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: so, did any of the much-ballyhooed florida (misnomered) naps actually manage to attract the significant (== big tier-1) isps? http://www.napoftheamericas.net/membersrepresentativecustomerlist.cfm http://www.napoftheamericas.net/memberscarriers.cfm are they connected and peering, i.e. packets moving, or just paying rent? How many big tier-1 isps peer at public exchange points these days? I know Level-3, Abovenet, Genuity (although that's now Level3) do. I don't think Sprint, UUNet (in the US), ATT do. I'm willing to be proven wrong. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (BBC ext 37720) Technology Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (BBC ext 37701) BBC Internet Services | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB. UK
Re: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof.
I must point out that BellSouth's MIX is gone Also, I am curious about NOTA's lomng term plans given that most of the building where the NAP is at is rented by Global Crossing -- at least has been before ch. 11 - Original Message - From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ray Burkholder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 3:08 PM Subject: RE: Puerto Rico Peering Point, or existence thereof. so, did any of the much-ballyhooed florida (misnomered) naps actually manage to attract the significant (== big tier-1) isps? http://www.napoftheamericas.net/membersrepresentativecustomerlist.cfm http://www.napoftheamericas.net/memberscarriers.cfm are they connected and peering, i.e. packets moving, or just paying rent? randy
Re: fast ethernet limits
100 meters is, in fact, the distance limitation for Fast Ethernet, but you can usually exceed that if the link is full duplex. Note that I'm not recommending that you do so, just stating that it is possible. If your run length is more than 100 meters, and you're running half duplex, then I would say that is definitely your problem. -- Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299 Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. fax: +1-775-348-9412 http://www.greatbasin.net
RE: fast ethernet limits
Steve, What type medium are you using? If it is normal Cat5/6 then the limitation is 100 meters for total distance and as you approach that limit the signal degrades. That said, 100baseFX can run for 400 meters due to the fact that it is fiber, both are part of the fast Ethernet specification though. A repeater would boost signal, but perhaps a switch in there might not be a bad idea, segment the 27 floors into VLANs, reduce overall traffic traveling between floors and eliminate the 27 floor run. Hope this helps, Kristian P. Jackson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Steve Rude Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 3:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: fast ethernet limits Hi NANOG, Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom of the building (in the telco room) to the top of the building. We have cisco switches on either end and we are seeing about 5-20% packet loss on the trunk. Are we running into a distance limitation of fast ethernet, or are we suffering from another problem? I read that 328 feet is the limitation of fast ethernet. Is there anything short of getting a repeater for the cable run that I can do to boost the signal? TIA for your help. Ciao. Steve Rude
Re: fast ethernet limits
I used to see these exact same results when I would setup Wireless pop's on towers taller than 400Ft. I was able to push the envelope a bit, however when I saw the issues that you speak of, it was when I had bad crimps, or sometimes a bad cable all together. Cat5 should be fine for this... if you figure 12ft risers you are probably cutting it close on the distance but not going over it. -Scotty - Original Message - From: Steve Rude [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 3:01 PM Subject: fast ethernet limits Hi NANOG, Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom of the building (in the telco room) to the top of the building. We have cisco switches on either end and we are seeing about 5-20% packet loss on the trunk. Are we running into a distance limitation of fast ethernet, or are we suffering from another problem? I read that 328 feet is the limitation of fast ethernet. Is there anything short of getting a repeater for the cable run that I can do to boost the signal? TIA for your help. Ciao. Steve Rude
RE: fast ethernet limits
And you are using shielded cable, correct? Best regards, __ Al Rowland -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bruce Robertson Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 12:19 PM To: Steve Rude Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: fast ethernet limits 100 meters is, in fact, the distance limitation for Fast Ethernet, but you can usually exceed that if the link is full duplex. Note that I'm not recommending that you do so, just stating that it is possible. If your run length is more than 100 meters, and you're running half duplex, then I would say that is definitely your problem. -- Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299 Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. fax: +1-775-348-9412 http://www.greatbasin.net
RE: fast ethernet limits
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Al Rowland wrote: And you are using shielded cable, correct? Nah, I'm guessing he strung bare copper seperated by cotton balls. That's what I like to use in my 27-floor 100tx runs. Andy Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
RE: frame relay to atm conversion tool?
I now have a prototype spreadsheet. Email me offline if you are interested in getting a copy...maybe helping in making it more accurate. Thanks, BM -Original Message- From: Peter E. Fry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: frame relay to atm conversion tool? On 9 Jan 2003 at 17:45, Swaminathan, Sekar wrote: Instead of Frame Relay frames, you have to look at the payload which is usually IP packets. Here is the formula that I would use: [...] Specifying an average packet size is rough: I've observed that on an average Internet connection around 35% of packets are 64 bytes, 35% 1500 bytes, and the remainder scattered about. The average is guaranteed to be a poor match for at least 70% of your traffic. Not that it matters. Most carriers configure FRATM VCCs as 1536kbps frame relay = 4500cps, treating fractions accordingly. The last thing you want to do is exceed this cell rate (around 1710kbps at a 1500-byte packet size), as on a policed link you'll lose nonconforming cells. (Actually, a 1536kb frame relay seems to be closer to a 1705kb ATM VCC. Eh, the IWF has to buffer some anyway.) If you increase your cell rates you potentially oversubscribe your frame link (and the IWF may disallow it in any case). So if you're tempted to exceed this ratio be very certain of your link characteristics. Add to that: when a sustained rate is defined (VBR service category) the ATM peak rate probably doesn't mean what you would expect, so I recommend sustained = peak. (ABR is the best match for data, but isn't often used.) As to the original question, I wouldn't recommend translating a burstable frame to ATM unless you can order an ABR VCC or get UPC and/or frame discard disabled on your link (don't bet on it). It's not likely you can match parameters, so without flow control you're essentially looking at reduced performance or packet loss under load. Whatever you do get, I recommend you ask your carrier for a spec. You have plenty of variables and relatively robust protocols, meaning you could take a shot, miss, and only find out for certain that you had when you'd really rather not. Get it reasonably right, though, and it'll do right by you. Huh. Now that I look at it, I need to rethink my own figures yet again (I haven't even implemented the last rethink) as I appear to have tended toward the conservative in some areas. Grrr. Take it easy. Peter E. Fry
Re: fast ethernet limits
You could use fiber and a fiber conversion box. Or you could use a switch or repeater half way. On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Steve Rude wrote: Hi NANOG, Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom of the building (in the telco room) to the top of the building. We have cisco switches on either end and we are seeing about 5-20% packet loss on the trunk. Are we running into a distance limitation of fast ethernet, or are we suffering from another problem? I read that 328 feet is the limitation of fast ethernet. Is there anything short of getting a repeater for the cable run that I can do to boost the signal? TIA for your help. Ciao. Steve Rude
RE: fast ethernet limits
Actually andy, the oc192 wiccs in the 2600 series work better. :) On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Andy Dills wrote: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Al Rowland wrote: And you are using shielded cable, correct? Nah, I'm guessing he strung bare copper seperated by cotton balls. That's what I like to use in my 27-floor 100tx runs. Andy Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
Re: fast ethernet limits
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Douglas A. Dever wrote: Previously, Steve Rude ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi NANOG, Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom of the building (in the telco room) to the top of the building. We have cisco switches on either end and we are seeing about 5-20% packet loss on the trunk. Are we running into a distance limitation of fast ethernet, or are we suffering from another problem? I read that 328 feet is the limitation of fast ethernet. Is there anything short of getting a repeater for the cable run that I can do to boost the signal? Well, when I don't have drawings or prints, I usually figure on 12 or 13ft per floor. So, figure somewhere between 324 and 351 feet from 1st floor to the ceiling on 27. For a run like this, you probably wanted to use fiber with media converters on each end. (Assuming you're not running switches with 100BaseFX ports or a GBIC slot...) Indeed altho depending on purpose bear in mind a repeater is just a hub or switch, if you can fit one half way up you should solve your loss problems. Yeah 328 is the alleged limit but it can go further usually, as another reader said you need good connectors and cables tho. A more likely cause of trouble for you in the ducting is interference if you're running alongside AC mains and other data cables both of which will increase noise and reduce the limit even more. Steve
Re: fast ethernet limits
you need to put a fluke lanmeter or similar device (with tdr) to validate the cable... you may just need to reterminate the ends, but it's also likely that it's simply way out of spec. joelja On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Steve Rude wrote: Hi NANOG, Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom of the building (in the telco room) to the top of the building. We have cisco switches on either end and we are seeing about 5-20% packet loss on the trunk. Are we running into a distance limitation of fast ethernet, or are we suffering from another problem? I read that 328 feet is the limitation of fast ethernet. Is there anything short of getting a repeater for the cable run that I can do to boost the signal? TIA for your help. Ciao. Steve Rude -- -- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Re: fast ethernet limits
Steve, What type medium are you using? If it is normal Cat5/6 then the limitation is 100 meters for total distance and as you approach that limit the signal degrades. That said, 100baseFX can run for 400 meters due to the fact that it is fiber, both are part of the fast Ethernet specification though. And just for the record, 100BaseFX in full-duplex mode can actually run for 2000 meters with multimode fiber 62.5 micron core, 125 micron outer. -- Jorge Hernandez UNAM Network Operations Center http://www.noc.unam.mx (+52) 55 5622 8509
RE: fast ethernet limits
putting a shield on cat5 or 6 cable doesn't significantly increase the noise rejection vs utp cat 5 at 100mb/s, you're shielding already balanced cable pairs. moreover they're signifcantly harder to install since they need to be properly grounded and shielded at both ends. joelja On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Andy Dills wrote: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Al Rowland wrote: And you are using shielded cable, correct? Nah, I'm guessing he strung bare copper seperated by cotton balls. That's what I like to use in my 27-floor 100tx runs. Andy Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access -- -- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
RE: fast ethernet limits
Dang. Snapple - out nose. I hear aluminum coated dental floss is making a comeback in the wiring racket... Nah, I'm guessing he strung bare copper seperated by cotton balls. That's what I like to use in my 27-floor 100tx runs. Andy Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
RE: fast Ethernet limits
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 13:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: fast ethernet limits snip moreover they're signifcantly harder to install since they need to be properly grounded and shielded at both ends. I've seen people use shielded CAT5 to protect it from interference but they didn't bother grounding the shielding on either end
RE: fast Ethernet limits
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Stephen Fisher wrote: I've seen people use shielded CAT5 to protect it from interference but they didn't bother grounding the shielding on either end In the me too category, I've seen a company install wireless on top of the Netherland's highest building (The Rembrandt's tower), which included using a lightning arrestor, and not ground it. It only took 3 storms (and 3 wireless cards) before they finally decided to ground the thing, and at the time, they weren't that cheap either :) Paul -- God devised pigeons as a means of punishment for man. Probably after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha he wanted to make sure that people would never again feel comfortable enough in a city to repeat the sins committed there, and he created the pigeons as a means to make the city dwellers' lives more miserable, as a constant reminder of their past sins.
Re: fast ethernet limits
I believe your pushing the limits as to ethernet over Cat5. I can suggest you use the very best cable (shielded of course) you can get, and be meticulous in your connector installations and you might get away with it. Avoid other wiring if possible (fat chance huh?) and anything electrical interference producing, like fluoro ballasts, transformers etc. etc. Ground the end closest to earth ground to a good common point ground in the building, (not a power box) and leave the other end free floating and not touching anything electrically. 100 meters is supposedly the limit for ethernet, and assuming a 12' floor, your'e around 24 feet over spec. You might try to find some cat 6 cable if you can, its supposedly super premium cat 5, with better freq response and jittter control. http://www.controlcable.com/products/category_6_cable.html One last advice, use REAL good patch cables as well...they may help squeeze the last bit of performance out.. At 12:01 1/10/03 -0800, you wrote: Hi NANOG, Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom of the building (in the telco room) to the top of the building. We have cisco switches on either end and we are seeing about 5-20% packet loss on the trunk. Are we running into a distance limitation of fast ethernet, or are we suffering from another problem? I read that 328 feet is the limitation of fast ethernet. Is there anything short of getting a repeater for the cable run that I can do to boost the signal? TIA for your help. Ciao. Steve Rude
Re: fast ethernet limits
just go mm fiber.. Bri On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Joel Jaeggli wrote: you need to put a fluke lanmeter or similar device (with tdr) to validate the cable... you may just need to reterminate the ends, but it's also likely that it's simply way out of spec. joelja On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Steve Rude wrote: Hi NANOG, Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom of the building (in the telco room) to the top of the building. We have cisco switches on either end and we are seeing about 5-20% packet loss on the trunk. Are we running into a distance limitation of fast ethernet, or are we suffering from another problem? I read that 328 feet is the limitation of fast ethernet. Is there anything short of getting a repeater for the cable run that I can do to boost the signal? TIA for your help. Ciao. Steve Rude -- -- Joel JaeggliAcademic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
iij contact
Wonder if there is an iij america contact around if so could you contact me off list. Thanks Scott
Re: fast ethernet limits
Joel Jaeggli wrote: [...] moreover they're signifcantly harder to install since they need to be properly grounded and shielded at both ends. I've actually seen some very impressive ground loops. I'd ground one end. (Actually I'd use fiber, but hey.) Peter E. Fry
Re: US-Asia Peering
At 09:33 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: In response to Randy and Bill(s), this seems to come down to a trade off of commercial vs technical. A lot of us agree this is technically not the best way and produces instabilities with the potential to take out major chunks of internet but it is cheap and this means people will adopt this way of doing it, unfortunately as this has now happened it means those opposed to the idea will have to also consider this as an option if they are to compete. I don't think it's fair to characterize it as a trend... I mean, ten years ago, we were all (generalizing here) stupid enough to try these tricks. Fortunately, smarter people have come along since, and learned from our mistakes. There are also _vastly_ more people involved in the industry now than then, so it comes as no surprise that there are still some newbies trying this, despite all the lessons of the past. The good news is that although they're a quantitatively growing group, they're a shrinking _fraction_ of the whole. So that's evidence of some small progress in the state of knowledge. Fight the law of conservation of clue! -Bill Bill - the argument seems like Proof by Rigorous Assertion: I know it is a bad idea. I really really believe it is a bad idea. My friends say it's a bad idea. Not one that I know says it is a good idea. Therefore, and I can't emphasize this enough, in conclusion, it is a bad idea. If what you are saying is true, I'd really like to hear just a couple of insurmountable technical problems with WAN L2.5 infrastructure interconnecting IX switches. For the sake of argument and to clarify the discussion (Paul) let's make a few assumptions: 1) We are talking about an operations model where IX switches are operated by a single company. 2) The IX switches are interconnected by MPLS by a transport provider offering that service. 3) An ISP on one switch creates a VLAN for peering with ISPs on any of the other switches. This ISP VLAN is only for peering with the ISP that created this VLAN. Since he is paying for the VLAN traffic he has this right. 4) The cost of transporting the traffic between the switches is bourne by a transport provider who in turn charges the ISP that created the VLAN in question. I can articulate a half dozen reasons why this is a good idea. Please share with us why this is a such a bad idea. If it has been tried before, it would be helpful to point to specific the case and why it failed, the technical failure scenario. I'd like to hear why/how it was worse by the distance between switches. Bill
Re: US-Asia Peering
Y'all havin fun with them straw men, Bill? Original Message From: William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: US-Asia Peering At 09:33 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: In response to Randy and Bill(s), this seems to come down to a trade off of commercial vs technical. A lot of us agree this is technically not the best way and produces instabilities with the potential to take out major chunks of internet but it is cheap and this means people will adopt this way of doing it, unfortunately as this has now happened it means those opposed to the idea will have to also consider this as an option if they are to compete. I don't think it's fair to characterize it as a trend... I mean, ten years ago, we were all (generalizing here) stupid enough to try these tricks. Fortunately, smarter people have come along since, and learned from our mistakes. There are also _vastly_ more people involved in the industry now than then, so it comes as no surprise that there are still some newbies trying this, despite all the lessons of the past. The good news is that although they're a quantitatively growing group, they're a shrinking _fraction_ of the whole. So that's evidence of some small progress in the state of knowledge. Fight the law of conservation of clue! -Bill Bill - the argument seems like Proof by Rigorous Assertion: I know it is a bad idea. I really really believe it is a bad idea. My friends say it's a bad idea. Not one that I know says it is a good idea. Therefore, and I can't emphasize this enough, in conclusion, it is a bad idea. If what you are saying is true, I'd really like to hear just a couple of insurmountable technical problems with WAN L2.5 infrastructure interconnecting IX switches. For the sake of argument and to clarify the discussion (Paul) let's make a few assumptions: 1) We are talking about an operations model where IX switches are operated by a single company. 2) The IX switches are interconnected by MPLS by a transport provider offering that service. 3) An ISP on one switch creates a VLAN for peering with ISPs on any of the other switches. This ISP VLAN is only for peering with the ISP that created this VLAN. Since he is paying for the VLAN traffic he has this right. 4) The cost of transporting the traffic between the switches is bourne by a transport provider who in turn charges the ISP that created the VLAN in question. I can articulate a half dozen reasons why this is a good idea. Please share with us why this is a such a bad idea. If it has been tried before, it would be helpful to point to specific the case and why it failed, the technical failure scenario. I'd like to hear why/how it was worse by the distance between switches. Bill
