Perspectives: Diseconomies of Scale [was: Re: (latency) cooling door ...

[Frank Coluccio]

I offer this as an afterthought without any expectations of replies to last
week's latency discussion that focused on centralized vs. distributed, or one 
vs.
many, data centers. While IMO the authors do not take into proper account the
costs associated with network bandwidth and node provisioning, I thought it was
nonetheless interesting due to the other factors they highlighted. There's
nothing particularly correct here, merely some additional viewpoints on the
subject that were not covered here earlier. Enjoy!

"Diseconomies of Scale" - by Ken Church & James Hamilton
April 6, 2008

http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2008/04/06/DiseconomiesOfScale.aspx

Frank  

---

Re: cooling door

[Frank Coluccio]

>Here is a little hint - most distributed applications in traditional jobsets,
tend to work best when they are close together. Unless you can map those jobsets
onto truly partitioned algorithms that work on local copy, this is a _non 
starter_.<

I thought that I had made my view clear in this respect in my earlier postings.
When moving to the kinds of optical extension techniques I outlined earlier in
this thread, I can't be too emphatic in noting that one size does not fit all.

And while I appreciate the hint, you probably don't realize it yet, but in some
ways you are helping to make my argument.

Consider for a moment my initial point (my main point, in fact) concerning 
moving
all of the LAN gear in an enterprise building out to the cloud (customer-owned
data center or colo, machs niches). My contention here is that, this not only
eliminates LAN rooms and all the switches and environmentals that fill them, but
it radically reduces the bulk of the gear normally found in the building's
telecom center, as well, since hierarchical routing infrastructure, and severs 
of
most types that are used for networking purposes (along with their associated
power and air provisions to keep all of them going) would also no longer have a
place onsite, either.

Rather, these elements, too, could be centrally located in an offsite data 
center
(hence reducing their overall number for multi-site networks) _or _in _a _colo _
OR in one of the enterprise's other sites where it makes sense.

"OR IN A COLO" is especially relevant here, and in some ways related to the 
point
you are arguing. There are many enterprises, in fact, who have already, over
their own dark fibernets (now lit, of course) and leased optical facilities, 
long
since taken the steps to move their server farms and major network node 
positions
to 111-8th, 611 Wilshire, Exodus and scores of other exchange locations around
the world, although most of them, up until now, have not yet taken the next
precipitous step of moving their LAN gear out to the cloud, as well.

Of course when they do decide to free the premises of LAN gear, so too will they
obviate the requirement for many of the routers and associated networking
elements in those buildings, too, thus streamlining L3 route administration
within the intranet, as well.

I should emphasize here that when played properly this is NOT a zero sum game. 
By
the same token, however, what we're discussing here is really a situational 
call.
I grant you, for instance, that some, perhaps many, jobs are best suited to
having their elements sited close to one another. Many, as I've outlined above 
do
not fit this constraint. This is a scalar type of decision process, where the
smallest instance of the fractal doesn't require the same absolute level of
provisioning as the largest, where each is a candidate that must meet a minimum
set of criteria before making full sense.

>lets assume we have abundant dark fiber, and a 800 strand ribbon fiber cable
costs the same as a utp run. Can you get me some quotes from a few folks about
terminating and patching 800 strands x2?<

This is likely an rhetorical question, although it needn't be. Yes, I can get
those quotes, and quotes that are many times greater in scope, and have for a
number of financial trading floors and outside plant dark nets. It wasn't very
long ago, however, when the same question could still be asked about UTP, since
every wire of every pair during those earlier times required the use of a
soldering iron. My point being, the state of the art of fiber heading,
connectorization and splicing continues to improve all the time, as does the
quality and costing of pre-connectorized jumpers (in the event your question had
to do with jumpers and long cross-conns).

>There is a reason most people, who are backed up by sober accountants, tend to
cluster stuff under one roof.<

Agreed. Sometimes, however, perhaps quite often in fact, one can attribute this
behavior to a quality known more commonly as bunker mentality.
--
When I closed my preceding message in this subthread I stated I would welcome a
continuation of this discussion offlist with anyone who was interested. Since
then I've received onlist responses, so I responded here in kind, but my earlier
offer still holds.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile
--

On Mon Mar 31  9:53 , "vijay gill"  sent:

>
>
>On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Frank Coluccio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>Michael Dillon is spot on when he states the following (quotation below),
>
>although he could have gone another step in suggesting how the distance
>
>insensitivity of fiber could be further leveraged:
>Dillon is not only not spot on, dillon is quite a bit away from being spot on.
Read on. 
>
>
>
>
>
>>The high speed fibre in Metro 

Re: latency (was: RE: cooling door)

[Frank Coluccio]

Silly me. I didn't mean "turns" alone, but also intended to include the number 
of
state "transitions" (e-o, o-e, e-e, etc.) in my preceding reply, as well.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sun Mar 30 16:47 , Frank Coluccio  sent:

>Mikael, I see your points more clearly now in respect to the number of turns
>affecting latency. In analyzing this further, however, it becomes apparent that
>the collapsed backbone regimen may, in many scenarios offer far fewer
>opportunities for turns, and more occasions for others. 
>
>To the former class of winning applications, because it eliminates local
>access/distribution/aggregation switches and then an entire lineage of
>hierarchical in-building routing elements. 
>
>To the latter class of loser applications, no doubt, if a collapsed backbone
>design were to be dropped-shipped in place on a Friday Evening, as is, the 
>there
>would surely be some losers that would require re-designing, or maybe simply 
>some
>re-tuning, or they may need to be treated as one-offs entirely. 
>
>BTW, in case there is any confusion concerning my earlier allusion to "SMB", it
>had nothing to do with the size of message blocks, protocols, or anything else
>affecting a transaction profile's latency numbers. Instead, I was referring to
>the "_s_mall-to-_m_edium-sized _b_usiness" class of customers that the cable
>operator Bright House Networks was targeting with its passive optical network
>business-grade offering, fwiw.
>--
>
>Mikael, All, I truly appreciate the comments and criticisms you've offered on
>this subject up until now in connection with the upstream hypothesis that began
>with a post by Michael Dillon. However, I shall not impose this topic on the
>larger audience any further. I would, however, welcome a continuation _offlist 
>_
>with anyone so inclined. If anything worthwhile results I'd be pleased to post 
>it
>here at a later date. TIA.
>
>Frank A. Coluccio
>DTI Consulting Inc.
>212-587-8150 Office
>347-526-6788 Mobile
>
>On Sun Mar 30  3:17 , Mikael Abrahamsson  sent:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Frank Coluccio wrote:
>>
>>> Understandably, some applications fall into a class that requires very-short
>>> distances for the reasons you cite, although I'm still not comfortable with 
>>> the
>>> setup you've outlined. Why, for example, are you showing two Ethernet 
>>> switches
>>> for the fiber option (which would naturally double the switch-induced 
>>> latency),
>>> but only a single switch for the UTP option?
>>
>>Yes, I am showing a case where you have switches in each rack so each rack 
>>is uplinked with a fiber to a central aggregation switch, as opposed to 
>>having a lot of UTP from the rack directly into the aggregation switch.
>>
>>> Now, I'm comfortable in ceding this point. I should have made allowances 
>>> for this
>>> type of exception in my introductory post, but didn't, as I also omitted 
>>> mention
>>> of other considerations for the sake of brevity. For what it's worth, 
>>> propagation
>>> over copper is faster propagation over fiber, as copper has a higher nominal
>>> velocity of propagation (NVP) rating than does fiber, but not significantly
>>> greater to cause the difference you've cited.
>>
>>The 2/3 speed of light in fiber as opposed to propagation speed in copper 
>>was not in my mind.
>>
>>> As an aside, the manner in which o-e-o and e-o-e conversions take place when
>>> transitioning from electronic to optical states, and back, affects latency
>>> differently across differing link assembly approaches used. In cases where 
>>> 10Gbps
>>
>>My opinion is that the major factors of added end-to-end latency in my 
>>example is that the packet has to be serialisted three times as opposed to 
>>once and there are three lookups instead of one. Lookups take time, 
>>putting the packet on the wire take time.
>>
>>Back in the 10 megabit/s days, there were switches that did cut-through, 
>>ie if the output port was not being used the instant the packet came in, 
>>it could start to send out the packet on the outgoing port before it was 
>>completely taken in on the incoming port (when the header was received, 
>>the forwarding decision was taken and the equipment would start to send 
>>the packet out before it was completely received from the input port).
>>
>>> By chance, is the "deserialization" you cited earlier, perhaps related to 
>>> this
&g

Re: latency (was: RE: cooling door)

[Frank Coluccio]

Mikael, I see your points more clearly now in respect to the number of turns
affecting latency. In analyzing this further, however, it becomes apparent that
the collapsed backbone regimen may, in many scenarios offer far fewer
opportunities for turns, and more occasions for others. 

To the former class of winning applications, because it eliminates local
access/distribution/aggregation switches and then an entire lineage of
hierarchical in-building routing elements. 

To the latter class of loser applications, no doubt, if a collapsed backbone
design were to be dropped-shipped in place on a Friday Evening, as is, the there
would surely be some losers that would require re-designing, or maybe simply 
some
re-tuning, or they may need to be treated as one-offs entirely. 

BTW, in case there is any confusion concerning my earlier allusion to "SMB", it
had nothing to do with the size of message blocks, protocols, or anything else
affecting a transaction profile's latency numbers. Instead, I was referring to
the "_s_mall-to-_m_edium-sized _b_usiness" class of customers that the cable
operator Bright House Networks was targeting with its passive optical network
business-grade offering, fwiw.
--

Mikael, All, I truly appreciate the comments and criticisms you've offered on
this subject up until now in connection with the upstream hypothesis that began
with a post by Michael Dillon. However, I shall not impose this topic on the
larger audience any further. I would, however, welcome a continuation _offlist _
with anyone so inclined. If anything worthwhile results I'd be pleased to post 
it
here at a later date. TIA.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sun Mar 30  3:17 , Mikael Abrahamsson  sent:

>On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Frank Coluccio wrote:
>
>> Understandably, some applications fall into a class that requires very-short
>> distances for the reasons you cite, although I'm still not comfortable with 
>> the
>> setup you've outlined. Why, for example, are you showing two Ethernet 
>> switches
>> for the fiber option (which would naturally double the switch-induced 
>> latency),
>> but only a single switch for the UTP option?
>
>Yes, I am showing a case where you have switches in each rack so each rack 
>is uplinked with a fiber to a central aggregation switch, as opposed to 
>having a lot of UTP from the rack directly into the aggregation switch.
>
>> Now, I'm comfortable in ceding this point. I should have made allowances for 
>> this
>> type of exception in my introductory post, but didn't, as I also omitted 
>> mention
>> of other considerations for the sake of brevity. For what it's worth, 
>> propagation
>> over copper is faster propagation over fiber, as copper has a higher nominal
>> velocity of propagation (NVP) rating than does fiber, but not significantly
>> greater to cause the difference you've cited.
>
>The 2/3 speed of light in fiber as opposed to propagation speed in copper 
>was not in my mind.
>
>> As an aside, the manner in which o-e-o and e-o-e conversions take place when
>> transitioning from electronic to optical states, and back, affects latency
>> differently across differing link assembly approaches used. In cases where 
>> 10Gbps
>
>My opinion is that the major factors of added end-to-end latency in my 
>example is that the packet has to be serialisted three times as opposed to 
>once and there are three lookups instead of one. Lookups take time, 
>putting the packet on the wire take time.
>
>Back in the 10 megabit/s days, there were switches that did cut-through, 
>ie if the output port was not being used the instant the packet came in, 
>it could start to send out the packet on the outgoing port before it was 
>completely taken in on the incoming port (when the header was received, 
>the forwarding decision was taken and the equipment would start to send 
>the packet out before it was completely received from the input port).
>
>> By chance, is the "deserialization" you cited earlier, perhaps related to 
>> this
>> inverse muxing process? If so, then that would explain the disconnect, and 
>> if it
>> is so, then one shouldn't despair, because there is a direct path to avoiding
this.
>
>No, it's the store-and-forward architecture used in all modern equipment 
>(that I know of). A packet has to be completely taken in over the wire 
>into a buffer, a lookup has to be done as to where this packet should be 
>put out, it needs to be sent over a bus or fabric, and then it has to be 
>clocked out on the outgoing port from another buffer. This adds latency in 
>each switch hop on the way.
>
>As Adrian Chadd 

Re: latency (was: RE: cooling door)

[Frank Coluccio]

Understandably, some applications fall into a class that requires very-short
distances for the reasons you cite, although I'm still not comfortable with the
setup you've outlined. Why, for example, are you showing two Ethernet switches
for the fiber option (which would naturally double the switch-induced latency),
but only a single switch for the UTP option?  

Now, I'm comfortable in ceding this point. I should have made allowances for 
this
type of exception in my introductory post, but didn't, as I also omitted mention
of other considerations for the sake of brevity. For what it's worth, 
propagation
over copper is faster propagation over fiber, as copper has a higher nominal
velocity of propagation (NVP) rating than does fiber, but not significantly
greater to cause the difference you've cited. 

As an aside, the manner in which o-e-o and e-o-e conversions take place when
transitioning from electronic to optical states, and back, affects latency
differently across differing link assembly approaches used. In cases where 
10Gbps
or greater is being sent across a "multi-mode" fiber link in a data center or
other in-building venue, for instance, "parallel optics" are most ofen used,
i.e., multiple optical channels (either fibers or wavelengths) that undergo
multiplexing and de-multiplexing (collectively: inverse multiplexing or channel
bonding) -- as opposed to a single fiber (or a single wavelength) operating at
the link's rated wire speed.

By chance, is the "deserialization" you cited earlier, perhaps related to this
inverse muxing process? If so, then that would explain the disconnect, and if it
is so, then one shouldn't despair, because there is a direct path to avoiding 
this.

In parallel optics, e-o processing and o-e processing is intensive at both ends
of the 10G link, respectively. These have the effect of adding more latency than
a single-channel approach would. Yet, most of the TIA activity taking place 
today
that is geared to increasing data rates over in-building fiber links continues 
to
favor multi-mode and the use of parallel optics, as opposed to specifying
single-mode supporting a single channel. But singlemode solutions are also
available to those who dare to be different.

I'll look more closely at these issues and your original exception during the
coming week, since they represent an important aspect in assessing the overall
model. Thanks.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sat Mar 29 20:30 , Mikael Abrahamsson  sent:

>
>On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Frank Coluccio wrote:
>
>> Please clarify. To which network element are you referring in connection with
>> extended lookup times? Is it the collapsed optical backbone switch, or the
>> upstream L3 element, or perhaps both?
>
>I am talking about the matter that the following topology:
>
>server - 5 meter UTP - switch - 20 meter fiber - switch - 20 meter 
>fiber - switch - 5 meter UTP - server
>
>has worse NFS performance than:
>
>server - 25 meter UTP - switch - 25 meter UTP - server
>
>Imagine bringing this into metro with 1-2ms delay instead of 0.1-0.5ms.
>
>This is one of the issues that the server/storage people have to deal 
>with.
>
>-- 
>Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: latency (was: RE: cooling door)

[Frank Coluccio]

Please clarify. To which network element are you referring in connection with
extended lookup times? Is it the collapsed optical backbone switch, or the
upstream L3 element, or perhaps both?

Certainly, some applications will demand far less latency than others. Gamers 
and
some financial (program) traders, for instance, will not tolerate delays caused
by access provisions that are extended over vast WAN, or even large Metro,
distances. But in a local/intramural setting, where optical paths amount to no
more than a klick or so, the impact is almost negligible, even to the class of
users mentioned above. Worst case, run the enterprise over the optical model and
treat those latency-sensitive users as the one-offs that they actually are by
tying them into colos that are closer to their targets. That's what a growing
number of financial firms from around the country have done in NY and CHI colos,
in any case.

As for cost, while individual ports may be significantly more expensive in one
scenario than another, the architectural decision is seldom based on a single
element cost. It's the TCO of all architectural considerations that must be 
taken
into account. Going back to my original multi-story building example-- better
yet, let's use one of the forty-story structures now being erected at Ground 
Zero
as a case in point: 

When all is said and done it will have created a minimum of two internal data
centers (main/backup/load-sharing) and a minimum of eighty (80) LAN enclosures,
with each room consisting of two L2 access switches (where each of the latter
possesses multiple 10Gbps uplinks, anyway), UPS/HVAC/Raised flooring,
firestopping, sprinklers, and a commitment to consume power for twenty years in
order to keep all this junk purring. I think you see my point. 

So even where cost may appear to be the issue when viewing cost comparisons of
discreet elements, in most cases that qualify for this type of design, i.e. 
where
an organization reaches critical mass beyond so many users, I submit that it
really is not an issue. In fact, a pervasively-lighted environment may actually
cost far less.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sat Mar 29 19:20 , Mikael Abrahamsson  sent:

>
>On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Frank Coluccio wrote:
>
>> We often discuss the empowerment afforded by optical technology, but we've 
>> barely
>> scratched the surface of its ability to effect meaningful architectural 
>> changes.
>
>If you talk to the server people, they have an issue with this:
>
>Latency.
>
>I've talked to people who have collapsed layers in their LAN because they 
>can see performance degradation for each additional switch packets have to 
>pass in their NFS-mount. Yes, higher speeds means lower serialisation 
>delay, but there is still a lookup time involved and 10GE is 
>substantionally more expensive than GE.
>
>-- 
>Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: cooling door

[Frank Coluccio]

I referenced LAN rooms as an expedient and to highlight an irony. The point is,
smaller, less-concentrated, distributed enclosures suffice nicely for many
purposes, similar to how Google's distributed containers and Sun Micro's Data
Centers in a box do. And while LAN rooms that have been vacated, as a result of
using collapsed fiber, might fit these needs, since they would have been already
powered and conditioned in many cases, those could actually be reclaimed by
tenants and landlords as usable floor space in many cases.

>I suppose the maintenance industry would love the surge in extra 
>contracts to keep all the gear running

Your supposition is open to wide interpretation. I'll take it to mean that you
think "more" gear, not less, will require maintenance. Maybe in some cases, but
in the vast majority not.

Consider a multi-story commercial building that is entirely devoid of UTP-based
switches, but instead is supported over fiber to a colo or managed service
provider location. Why would this building require L2/3 aggregation switches and
routers, simply to get in and out, if it hasn't any access switches inside? It
wouldn't require any routers, is my point. This reduces the number of boxes
reqired by a factor of two or more, since I no longer require routers onsite, 
and
I no longer require their mates in the upstream or colos. I wouldn't require a
classical in-building L3 hierarchy employing high-end routers at the 
distribution
and core levels at all, or I'd require a lot fewer of them. Extending this
rationale further, the level of logistics and LAN element administration 
required
to keep on-prem applications humming is also reduced, ir not eliminated, and/or
could easily be sourced more efficiently elsewhere. I.e., from a CLI or Web
browser the LAN admin could be doing her thing from Mumbai (and in some cases
this is already being done) or from home. So there's actually "less" gear to
manage, not more.

I realize this isn't a one-size-fits all model, and I didn't intend to make it
appear that it was. But for the vast majority of enterprise buildings with
tenants occupying large contiguous areas, I think it makes a great deal of 
sense,
or at least would be worth evaluating to determine if it does. 

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sat Mar 29 18:30 , david raistrick  sent:

>On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Frank Coluccio wrote:
>
>> In fact, those same servers, and a host of other storage and network 
>> elements, can be returned to the LAN rooms and closets of most 
>> commercial buildings from whence they originally came prior to the
>
>How does that work?  So now we buy a whole bunch of tiny gensets, and a 
>whole bunch of baby UPSen and smaller cooling units to support little 
>datacenters?  Not to mention diverse paths to each point..
>
>Didn't we (the customers) try that already and realize that it's rather 
>unmanagable?
>
>
>I suppose the maintenance industry would love the surge in extra 
>contracts to keep all the gear running
>
>
>I suppose the maintenance industry would love the surge in extra 
>contracts to keep all the gear running
>..david
>
>
>---
>david raistrickhttp://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
>

RE: cooling door

[Frank Coluccio]

Michael Dillon is spot on when he states the following (quotation below),
although he could have gone another step in suggesting how the distance
insensitivity of fiber could be further leveraged:

>The high speed fibre in Metro Area Networks will tie it all together
>with the result that for many applications, it won't matter where
>the servers are. 

In fact, those same servers, and a host of other storage and network elements,
can be returned to the LAN rooms and closets of most commercial buildings from
whence they originally came prior to the large-scale data center consolidations
of the current millennium, once organizations decide to free themselves of the
100-meter constraint imposed by UTP-based LAN hardware and replace those LANs
with collapsed fiber backbone designs that attach to remote switches (which 
could
be either in-building or remote), instead of the minimum two switches on every
floor that has become customary today. 

We often discuss the empowerment afforded by optical technology, but we've 
barely
scratched the surface of its ability to effect meaningful architectural changes.
The earlier prospects of creating consolidated data centers were once
near-universally considered timely and efficient, and they still are in many
respects. However, now that the problems associated with a/c and power have
entered into the calculus, some data center design strategies are beginning to
look more like anachronisms that have been caught in a whip-lash of rapidly
shifting conditions, and in a league with the constraints that are imposed by 
the
now-seemingly-obligatory 100-meter UTP design. 

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sat Mar 29 13:57 ,  sent:

>
>> Can someone please, pretty please with sugar on top, explain 
>> the point behind high power density? 
>
>It allows you to market your operation as a "data center". If
>you spread it out to reduce power density, then the logical 
>conclusion is to use multiple physical locations. At that point
>you are no longer centralized.
>
>In any case, a lot of people are now questioning the traditional
>data center model from various angles. The time is ripe for a 
>paradigm change. My theory is that the new paradigm will be centrally
>managed, because there is only so much expertise to go around. But
>the racks will be physically distributed, in virtually every office 
>building, because some things need to be close to local users. The
>high speed fibre in Metro Area Networks will tie it all together
>with the result that for many applications, it won't matter where
>the servers are. Note that the Google MapReduce, Amazon EC2, Haddoop
>trend will make it much easier to place an application without
>worrying about the exact locations of the physical servers.
>
>Back in the old days, small ISPs set up PoPs by finding a closet 
>in the back room of a local store to set up modem banks. In the 21st
>century folks will be looking for corporate data centers with room
>for a rack or two of multicore CPUs running XEN, and Opensolaris
>SANs running ZFS/raidz providing iSCSI targets to the XEN VMs.
>
>--Michael Dillon

RE: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)

[Frank Coluccio]

Today's MIT Technology Review newsletter contains an article by John Borland,
aided in large part by Tim Strong of Telegeography Research, covering the recent
spate of submarine cable failures in the ME:

Analyzing the Internet Collapse
By John Borland | Feb 5, 2008
MIT Technology Review

Multiple fiber cuts to undersea cables show the fragility of the Internet at its
choke points.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20152/?nlid=854
--

A few afterthoughts after receiving a number of offlist mailings responding to 
my
earlier post of yesterday concerning the naval submarine, Jimmy Carter: 

My comments weren't intended as disparagement or as a means of denigrating most
of the excellent material that was posted on this subject. They were, instead,
merely cautionary in nature, intended primarily for students who frequent NANOG
for research and general interest, after noticing some folk lore and widely-held
misconceptions being introduced into the thread. Upon re-reading those, however,
they turn out to be mostly trivial, at worst. Besides, some would argue that
passing down folk lore to the next generation of practitioners is not only a 
good
thing, but a necessary thing, lest we get too caught up in being precise ;) 

On my posting about the naval submarine Jimmy Carter, that was half-intended as
entertainment, although some of the dubious-seeming points made in that article
have now been borne out in later releases by Egypt's telecommunications ministry
in asserting that, indeed, there were no vessels in the waters surrounding the
breaks, as is also noted in the reference MIT TR article above.
 
Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
347-526-6788
 

Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)

[Frank Coluccio]

This will be my only post on this subject after biting my tongue for several 
days:) 

Some members will appreciate this item I came across earlier, I'm sure. As
always, caveat emptor.

Where is the USS Jimmy Carter?
By Dave | February 3, 2008 

http://tinyurl.com/3y7zgu

List members -- and lurking students, in particular, should NOT take much of
what's been posted _on _this _topic _  too seriously or regard everything 
written
as factual. This cautionary note applies equally to the article I've posted
above, as well.

73s,

Re: Good Stuff [was] Re: shameful-cabling gallery of infamy - does anybody know

[Frank Coluccio]

Article: Abandoned Cable Removal A Dogged Challenge For All
Cabling Installatin & Maintenance Magazine
By Patrick McLaughlin | July 2007 Issue

http://preview.tinyurl.com/32cfak
--
As an aside, legend has it that some of the larger skyscrapers in NY City would
crumble under the weight of the cables installed inside them --particularly
coaxial and proprietary mutli-pair cable runs that were used for market data
services and desktop video displays prior to the proliferation of Ethernet over
fiber backbones-- running up and down vertical riser shafts, were it not for the
bracing and additional structural supports installed after the fact to support 
them. 

Frank  
---

On Wed Sep 12 10:10 , Joe Greco  sent:

>
>> If you find any pictures of NY.NET; Terry Kennedy made the above
>> look sloppy. Many places ban cable ties due to the sharp ends;
>> some allow 'em if tensioned by a pistol-grip installer.
>
>The tie gun is a good solution, but quite frankly, you don't need one
>to do a good job with cable ties.  This is mainly a training issue,
>and the training is substantially easier than training folks to use
>lacing cord.  The rule doesn't need to be much more than "clean cut
>required, if you can't do a clean cut, then leave the tail on."  
>
>Xcelite makes some fantastic tools, as anyone in this business should
>know, and they have a wide selection of full flush cutters that will
>work fine.  There are some other manufacturers who make this sort of
>cutter, of course, but they're a bit tricky to find.  The key thing 
>is that people learn not to just use any old wire cutters to snip 
>these.
>
>If you're really good, and the situation allows, you can use a knife
>or box cutter to trim ends as well.
>
>> Terry
>> required lacing cord. You can guess his heritage.
>
>That's mostly a pain to do.  Looks nice, but hell to modify, and more
>time and effort to install initially.
>
>> As for horror stories, a certain ISP near here that started out in
>> a video store had piles of Sportsters. The wall warts were lined
>> up and glued dead-bug style to a number of long 1x3's; then #14
>> copper was run down each side, daisy-chain soldered to each plug
>> blade. There was no attempt to insulate any of upright plugs...
>
>ExecPC, here in Wisconsin, had a much more elegant solution.  ExecPC
>BBS was the largest operating BBS in the world, with a large LAN net
>and a PC per dial-in line.  They had built a room with a custom rack
>system built right in, where a motherboard, network, video, and modem
>card sat in a slot, making a vertical stack of maybe 8 nodes, and then
>a bunch of those horizontally,  and then several rows of those.  That
>was interesting all by itself, but then they got into the Internet biz
>early on.
>
>They had opted to go with USR Courier modems for the Internet stuff.
>Being relatively "cheap", they didn't want to go for any fancier rack
>mount stuff (== much more expensive).  So they went shopping.  They
>found an all metal literature rack at the local office supply store
>that had 120 slots (or maybe it was two 60 slot units).  They took a
>wood board and mounted it vertically above the unit.  This held a 
>large commercial 120-to-24vac step-down transformer and a variac 
>that was used to trim the AC voltage down to the 20VAC(?) needed by 
>the Couriers.
>
>Down the backside, they ran a run of wide finger duct vertically.
>Inside this, they ran two thick copper bars that had been drilled
>and tapped 120 times by a local machine shop.  When connected to
>the step-down transformer's output, this formed the power backbone.
>They had a guy snip the power cables off the Courier wall warts,
>and spade lug them, and screwed them in.  Instant power for 120
>modems.
>
>Slip a modem in each slot.  Run phone wire up to one of five
>AllenTel AT125-SM's hanging on the back of the plywood, and there 
>you have 5 25pr for inbound.  Run serial cables up to one of four
>Portmaster PM2E-30's sitting on top of the racks, then network to 
>a cheap Asante 10 megabit hub, and you're done.  5 x 25pr POTS in,
>power in, ethernet out, standalone 120 line dialin solution.
>
>Multiply solution by 10 and you get to the biggest collection of
>Courier modems I've ever seen.
>
>They continued to do this until the advent of X2, which required
>T1's to a Total Control chassis, at which point they started to
>migrate to rackmount gear (they had no space to go beyond 1200
>analog Couriers anyways).
>
>... JG
>-- 
>Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
>"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
>won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
>With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: TransAtlantic Cable Break

[Frank Coluccio]

To clarify my last post, and to partly correct it, I was referring to VZ's new
TPE China cable, where I mentioned pending pricing and T&C information. Of
course, VZ already meshes its IP backbones, as a matter of course today, in
existing systems.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Fri Jun 22 23:59 , Frank Coluccio  sent:

>
>Interestingly, some major transoceanic undertakings have begun looking very
>favorably towards a meshed topology solution, eschewing rings. Verizon is
>championing this approach at the present time as a consortium partner in the
>Trans-Pacific Express (TPE) cable laying venture to China, and offers
>justifications for doing so in several interviews and PPT prezos I've come
>across. Makes sense. From: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yqcrzm
>
>May 2007 Issue of Lightwave Magazine
>
>
>"Last year, Verizon also took steps to improve the reliability of the
>transatlantic portion of its global IP network. In the past, traffic moved 
>across
>the Atlantic over SONET rings, which provided redundant paths. However, such
>architecture only protects against a single failure in a given ring. A failure 
>or
>service interruption on two or more segments of the same network required the
>deployment of a cable ship-the nautical equivalent of the truck roll-to restore
>service. Today, Verizon Business operates a mesh network, using Ciena
>CoreDirectors (www.ciena.com), to move traffic between six diverse paths that 
>can
>be routed onto other undersea networks in the event of a network failure."
>
>
>Of course, these offerings are still being "productized," so it remains to be
>seen what terms and conditions they carry, and how they will be priced. 
>
>Frank
>==
>
>On Fri Jun 22 11:56 , Sean Donelan  sent:
>
>>
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>>> Tell that to the 10 gig wave customers who lost service. Very few cable
>>>> systems provide protection at the 10 gig wave level.
>>>
>>> If you don't pay the extra amount for a protected circuit, why should your 
>>> circuit get protection for free when others have to pay for it?  Now, if 
>>> there are 10G customers with protected circuits who lost service, then 
>>> hopefully they have in their contract hefty penalty clauses against the 
>>> carrier.  If not, then they are just plain stupid.
>>
>>Is paying for "protected circuits" actually worth it.  Or are you better 
>>off just buying two circuits and using both during normal conditions. 
>>Use switching at layer 3 to the remaining circuit during abnormal 
>>conditions.  Most of the time, you get twice the capacity for only twice
>>the price instead of a "protected circuit" where you only get the once 
>>the capacity for twice the price.
>>
>>Of course, there is still the problem some facility provider will "groom" 
>>both your circuits on to the same cable.  If you are buying pre-emptable 
>>circuits, hopefully you understand what that means.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: TransAtlantic Cable Break

[Frank Coluccio]

Interestingly, some major transoceanic undertakings have begun looking very
favorably towards a meshed topology solution, eschewing rings. Verizon is
championing this approach at the present time as a consortium partner in the
Trans-Pacific Express (TPE) cable laying venture to China, and offers
justifications for doing so in several interviews and PPT prezos I've come
across. Makes sense. From: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yqcrzm

Article "Verizon Business plots business plan for ’07 and beyond"
May 2007 Issue of Lightwave Magazine


"Last year, Verizon also took steps to improve the reliability of the
transatlantic portion of its global IP network. In the past, traffic moved 
across
the Atlantic over SONET rings, which provided redundant paths. However, such
architecture only protects against a single failure in a given ring. A failure 
or
service interruption on two or more segments of the same network required the
deployment of a cable ship-the nautical equivalent of the truck roll-to restore
service. Today, Verizon Business operates a mesh network, using Ciena
CoreDirectors (www.ciena.com), to move traffic between six diverse paths that 
can
be routed onto other undersea networks in the event of a network failure."


Of course, these offerings are still being "productized," so it remains to be
seen what terms and conditions they carry, and how they will be priced. 

Frank
==

On Fri Jun 22 11:56 , Sean Donelan  sent:

>
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>> Tell that to the 10 gig wave customers who lost service. Very few cable
>>> systems provide protection at the 10 gig wave level.
>>
>> If you don't pay the extra amount for a protected circuit, why should your 
>> circuit get protection for free when others have to pay for it?  Now, if 
>> there are 10G customers with protected circuits who lost service, then 
>> hopefully they have in their contract hefty penalty clauses against the 
>> carrier.  If not, then they are just plain stupid.
>
>Is paying for "protected circuits" actually worth it.  Or are you better 
>off just buying two circuits and using both during normal conditions. 
>Use switching at layer 3 to the remaining circuit during abnormal 
>conditions.  Most of the time, you get twice the capacity for only twice
>the price instead of a "protected circuit" where you only get the once 
>the capacity for twice the price.
>
>Of course, there is still the problem some facility provider will "groom" 
>both your circuits on to the same cable.  If you are buying pre-emptable 
>circuits, hopefully you understand what that means.
>
>
>

Re: Measurement data on transit traffic in IP routers?

[Frank Coluccio]

>Your statement makes something of a presumption
>as to the architecture of a network.  In many 
>networks, edge aggregation devices do not
>participate in backbone routing, but simply 
>pass the traffic they are aggregating into the core.

My first reaction, as well. However, I was reminded 
by Andrew Odlyzko that the cable tv industry's (MSOs')
peering universe constitute a form of flattened 'edge', 
if one were to consider the larger Internet's core 
against the MSO community, which makes for another 
form of interesting analysis, since much of today's
(especially more capacious) residential "broadband"
flows begin and end on MSOs' networks, and sometimes 
never touch the larger core, fwiw. And this opens the
door to other forms of "walled garden" environments,
including intranets, some providers' CDNs, extranets, 
and so on.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sun Feb 18 10:54 , Andrew Lee  sent:

>
>Hi Chris
>
>Your statement makes something of a presumption as to the architecture
>of a network.  In many networks, edge aggregation devices do not
>participate in backbone routing, but simply pass the traffic they are
>aggregating into the core.
>
>One fairly well instrumented network that does have this edge/core
>collapsed model is the Internet2 network.  You can find a lot of traffic
>and other data for the network at:
>http://noc.net.internet2.edu/i2network/live-network-status.html
>You should be able to extract all the info you need from there.
>
>/Andrew
>
>Chris Develder wrote, On 2/18/07 5:46 AM:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> In preparation of a course, I'm looking for reference material (paper,
>> report, talk...) giving real world data on the amount of transit traffic
>> (ie. not locally dropped or added, but passing through to other
>> (backbone) routers) in a "typical" edge router of a core network, esp.
>> ratio of local vs passthrough traffic (is it 30%, 40%...?) -- I don't
>> need absolute figures, just realistic estimates of that ratio.
>> 
>> Any help in locating such references would be highly appreciated.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Chris
>> 

tracking fiber assets

[Frank Coluccio]

Daniel,

Ordinarily, I might suggest a straightforward 
software-based cable management system. However,
since your list of concerns also includes active 
elements and their wavelength and probably sub-
lambda derivatives, you'll probably want something 
that's rule-based with a bit more smarts.

Give a look at the "One Plan" system from
VPIsystems Inc (Holmdel, NJ). It was written 
up recently in Lightwave Magazine:
  
http://tinyurl.com/25q88n

One Plan has a photonic-layer inventory and
configuration module that will very likely 
satisfy your needs at the cable, strand and 
multimplexed levels, and then some. Whether 
or not it is available as a standalone module, 
however, I can't rightly say. Good Luck.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
New York City
347-526-6788
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---

On Thu Feb 15 18:52 , Daniel J McDonald  sent:

>
>What do people use to keep track of fiber-optic assets?  We own fiber on
>electric transmission lines - a hundred spans or so, mostly 24-48 count,
>about 800-900 total route-miles.  But we lack a tool to keep track of
>what is in use, which customers would be affected when we perform
>maintenance, and the like.
>
>Any suggestions for good tools to manage this would be most appreciated.
>Our spreadsheets, CAD drawings, and directories full of OTDR shots are
>just not cutting it.
>
>
>-- 
>Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX
>Austin Energy
>http://www.austinenergy.com

Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11

[Frank Coluccio]

I believe that the element that has been missing in this discussion thus far has
been the source (content) players, and where they are hiding. CDNs, a la Akamai,
Limelight, etc., will take up some of the slack and mitigate much of the 
backbone
burden where legitimate ISPs are concerned, as will hierarchical caching for the
newbie carriers-that-came-to-be-called "ISPs" -i.e., the MSOs and Telcos. 
Playing
the Pareto, the higher the demand (95/5) for a title, the closer it will be
stored to the user community, and the longer the tail (5/95) of a title, the
farther its storage from the user community. My point is, CDNs and hierarchical
cache must be inserted into the calculus, because one, they are already being
used, and two, their use will only increase with time, fwiw.

Frank 

ps - I've had some issues with my email editor of late. If anyone notices any
artifacts or extraneous characters in the delivery of this message, kindly email
me off list and I shall be indebted to you, tia. 

On Sun Feb 11 19:22 , "Geo."  sent:

>
>
>> do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put
>> some capital and preorder into IDMR?
>
>IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help 
>the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have 
>10k different users watching 10k different channels? I'm not sure if it 
>would help with a multinode replication network like what google is probably 
>up to either (which explains why they want dedicated bandwidth, internode 
>replication solves the backup problems as well).
>
>Also forgetting that bandwidth issue for a moment, where is the draw that 
>makes IPTV better than cable or satellite?  I mean come on guys, if the 
>world had started out with IPTV live broadcasts over the internet and then 
>someone developed cable, satellite, or over the air broadcasting, any of 
>those would have been considered an improvement. IPTV needs something the 
>others don't have and a simple advantage is that of an archive instead of 
>broadcast medium. The model has to be different from the broadcast model or 
>it's never going to fly.
>
>TIVO type setup with a massive archive of every show so you can not only 
>watch this weeks episode but you can tivo download any show from the last 6 
>years worth of your favorite series is one heck of a draw over cable or 
>satellite and might be enough to motivate the public to move to a different 
>service. A better tivo than tivo. As for making money, just stick a 
>commercial on the front of every download. How many movies are claimed 
>downloaded on the fileshare networks every week?
>
>Geo. 
>

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

[Frank Coluccio]

Gian wrote:

"From a big picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a non-starter,
too many reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I would say P2P
distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network infrastructure to be
justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth caps and you
will have a wonderful example of those hurdles."

Speaking about upstream hurdles, just out of curiosity (since this is merely a
diversionary discussion at this point;) ...  wouldn't peer-to-peer be the LEAST
desirable approach for an SP that is launching WiFi nets as its primary first
mile platform? I note that Earthlink is launching a number of cityscale WiFi 
nets
as we speak, which is why I'm asking. Has this in any way, even subliminally,
been influential in the shaping of your opinions about P2P for content
distribution? I know that it would affect my views, a whole lot, since the
prospects for WiFi's shared upstream capabilities to improve are slim to none in
the short to intermediate terms. Whereas, CM and FTTx are known to raise their
down and up offerings periodically, gated only by their usual game of chicken
where each watches to see who'll be first.

Frank 

On Mon Jan  8 22:26 , Gian Constantine  sent:

>My contention is simple. The content providers will not allow P2P video as a
legal commercial service anytime in the near future. Furthermore, most ISPs are
going to side with the content providers on this one. Therefore, discussing it 
at
this point in time is purely academic, or more so, diversionary.Personally, I am
not one for throttling high use subscribers. Outside of the fine print, which no
one reads, they were sold a service of Xkbps down and Ykbps up. I could not care
less how, when, or how often they use it. If you paid for it, burn it up.I have
questions as to whether or not P2P video is really a smart distribution method
for service provider who controls the access medium. Outside of being a service
provider, I think the economic model is weak, when there can be little
expectation of a large scale take rate.Ultimately, my answer is: we're not there
yet. The infrastructure isn't there. The content providers aren't there. The
market isn't there. The product needs a motivator. This discussion has been
putting the cart before the horse.A lot of big pictures pieces are completely
overlooked. We fail to question whether or not P2P sharing is a good method in
delivering the product. There are a lot of factors which play into this.
Unfortunately, more interest has been paid to the details of this delivery 
method
than has been paid to whether or not the method is even worthwhile.From a big
picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a non-starter, too many
reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I would say P2P
distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network infrastructure to be
justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth caps and you
will have a wonderful example of those hurdles.
> Gian Anthony ConstantineSenior Network Design EngineerEarthlink, Inc. 
>On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:So, kind of back to the
original question: what is going to be the reaction of your average service
provider to the presence of an increasing number of people sucking down massive
amounts of video and spitting it back out again... nothing? throttling all
traffic of a certain type? shutting down customers who exceed certain 
thresholds?
or just throttling their traffic? massive upgrades of internal network hardware?
>Is it your contention that there's no economic model, given the architecture of
current networks, which would would generate enough revenue to offset the cost 
of
traffic generated by P2P video?
>Thomas
>Gian Constantine wrote: There may have been a disconnect on my part, or at
least, a failure to disclose my position. I am looking at things from a provider
standpoint, whether as an ISP or a strict video service provider.
>I agree with you. From a consumer standpoint, a trickle or off-peak download
model is the ideal low-impact solution to content delivery. And absolutely, a
500GB drive would almost be overkill on space for disposable content encoded in
H.264. Excellent SD (480i) content can be achieved at ~1200 to 1500kbps,
resulting in about a 1GB file for a 90 minute title. HD is almost out of the
question for internet download, given good 720p at ~5500kbps, resulting in a 
30GB
file for a 90 minute title.
>Service providers wishing to provide this service to their customers may see
some success where they control the access medium (copper loop, coax, FTTH).
Offering such a service to customers outside of this scope would prove very
expensive, and likely, would never see a return on the investment without
extensive peering arrangements. Even then, distribution rights would be very
difficult to attain without very deep pockets and crippling revenue sharing. The
studios really dislike the idea of trans

Re: Undersea fiber cut after Taiwan earthquake - PCCW / Singtel /

[Frank Coluccio]

Joel Jaeggli wrote:

>The relevant charts and or current navigation software have the cables
>well marked because mariners have an obligation under several
>international treaties (going back to 1884) not to hit them...

All very good points. Thanks for pointing this out. Just so we're clear, while I
was passing along information provided by a third party I wasn't suggesting
whether obfuscating, or attempting to hide, or make public, location information
posed a problem or had any merit one way or the other. You've presented somewhat
of a Gordian knot here, it would appear. 

Consider, while it's extremely difficult for a customer to obtain information
concerning his or her own overland fiber routes without the signing away of 
their
first born, here we have, ironically, a situation where underwater cables of far
greater import are clearly marked on charts and made freely available through
software under the international treaty terms. Very interesting, but as you
suggest, a condition that's existed for a very long time.

Where continental shelves come into play, this problem has been partially
mitigated since 1970, when TAT-5 between R.I. and Spain was implemented using 
the
first "sea plow" to bury the cable several feet down off Rhode Island. That
having been said, not all shorelines sit on top of continental shelves, and even
where trenching is used on a shelf, it, too, poses its own perils during 
repairs,
when dangling cable ends are lost in a mire of mud clouds that take hours to
settle after divers use water pressure to find them while kicking up sediment on
the seabed. 

In other situations some operators resort to using radio communications and
sometimes small craft to ward off ships from cabling lanes. Years ago piper cubs
were used to buzz encroaching ships and drop tons of leaflets on them warning
them to stay away. Today they'd probably get shot down.

Right about here I'd expect a visit from Sean Gorman, who has had his own share
of grief to deal with in this respect while plotting the nation's overland fiber
routes. In fact, the title of his book is tres apropos to the problem you
highlighted:

Networks, Security And Complexity: The Role of Public Policy in Critical
Infrastructure Protection  by Sean P. Gorman (Hardcover - Sep 5, 2005)

http://tinyurl.com/y8za2t

Frank 
=====

On Thu Dec 28 18:18 , Joel Jaeggli  sent:

>Frank Coluccio wrote:
>> 
>> Kidding aside, these "errors" are actually intentional, and the publisher 
>> makes
>> no bones about it at the bottom of the page. See disclaimer under the South
>> Atlantic Ocean:
>> 
>> "Cable Routes do not represent all subsea cable networks and do not reflect
>> actual location of cables"
>
>The relevant charts and or current navigation software have the cables
>well marked because mariners have an obligation under several
>international treaties (going back to 1884) not to hit them... If you
>have the tools to go on a "fishing trip" you have the tools to find the
>cable.  If you obfuscate the location of cables I can plead ignorance
>when I drag it up with my achor.
>
>http://mapserver.maptech.com/mapserver/nautical_symbols/L4.html
>
>Like with back-hoeing through fiber, if you think hitting a submarine
>cable is bad there's plenty other stuff out there that has potentially
>disastrous consequences, gas lines, oil lines, well heads, high voltage
>power lines, and of course lots of other things that fall into the
>category of navigational hazards.
>
>joelja
>-- 
>
>Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>GPG Key Fingerprint:   5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

RE: Undersea fiber cut after Taiwan earthquake - PCCW / Singtel / KT e tc connectivity disrupted

[Frank Coluccio]

"Anderson, Matthew R [NTK] sent: 

>That map is incorrect at least with respect to 
>TAT-14.  They depict it landing in New York City, 
>though its two North American landing sites are 
>actually well south of there in Manasquan and 
>Tuckerton, NJ."

Thanks for highlighting the mis-placements of some of the cables. Offices in NY
City serve as the International Transmission Maintenance Centers and Gateway
Offices of multiple carriers, if those latter designations are still relevant
today. There are some other generalizations made on the map, as well, but I 
think
the general concept of their being, along with their general utility in the
universe, comes across just the same. Unless, of course, one is organizing a
fishing expedition;)

Kidding aside, these "errors" are actually intentional, and the publisher makes
no bones about it at the bottom of the page. See disclaimer under the South
Atlantic Ocean:

"Cable Routes do not represent all subsea cable networks and do not reflect
actual location of cables"

Frank 
==

On Thu Dec 28 15:37 , "Anderson, Matthew R [NTK]"  sent:

>That map is incorrect at least with respect to TAT-14.  They depict it landing
in New York City, though its two North American landing sites are actually well
south of there in Manasquan and Tuckerton, NJ.
>
>https://www.tat-14.com/tat14/stations.jsp
>
>I know that several of the other transatlantic cables do not land in NYC, for
obvious diversity reasons, but this PDF shows them all landing there.
>
>Matthew Anderson 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]','','','')">[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Coluccio
>Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:58 AM
>To: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya; Jared Mauch
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
>Subject: Re: Undersea fiber cut after Taiwan earthquake - PCCW / Singtel / KT e
tc connectivity disrupted
>
>
>I would expect that some of the affected cables have lost dc power used to 
>drive
>repeaters and amplifiers (10 kv d.c.) from their landing stations. Or that is 
>at
>least the hope at this time. The WSJ today published a superb article along 
>with
>a unusually detailed global route map. See intro along with some comments
>concerning the route map (tinyurl): 
>--
>
>Quake Damages Undersea Cables,
>Disrupting Internet Service in Asia
>By JASON DEAN
>December 27, 2006 2:36 p.m.
>
>[FAC: Assuming the link below works, the article below contains an excellent
>global view of what looks like most, if not all, of the major submarine cable
>routes around the world in use today. It's a keeper, IMO, so I suggest
>downloading it to your HD. Here's the pdf, which is probably subject to the 
>same
>shelf life constraint: http://tinyurl.com/ya45oo ]
>
>BEIJING -- A big earthquake near Taiwan disrupted phone and Internet traffic
>across Asia Wednesday, highlighting the fragility of a global 
>telecommunications
>system that still relies on vulnerable undersea cables to carry data.
>
>The magnitude 6.7 temblor that struck late Tuesday off Taiwan's southern coast
>cut several fiber-optic cables that carry communications traffic through a key
>nexus in Asia, connecting Hong Kong and Southeast Asia with Japan and,
>ultimately, North America.
>
>Continued at:
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116719850925860370.html\?mod=djemTECH
>
>Enjoy! 
>
>On Thu Dec 28  0:35 , Jared Mauch  sent:
>
>>
>>On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:55:25AM +, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
>>> 
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Information seems to suggest that these all have one or other faults  
>>> due to the earthquake.  Some probably have more serious problems then  
>>> others.
>>> 
>>> SMW3 (Sea-me-we 3).
>>> FNAL and FEA (FLAG North Asia Loop) ;
>>> RNAL = Reach North Asia Loop
>>> APCN2 (Asia Pacific Network 2)
>>> 
>>> C2C - Singtel's coast to coast
>>> EAC = East Asia Crossing (EAC)
>>> 
>>> Traffic is gradually coming back through ad-hoc setups and re-routes,  
>>> but cable providers are saying minimum 3 weeks for full recovery.
>>
>>  I've wondered how many boats/subs exist for these repairs
>>and if attempting to do them all in parallel is going to be a big
>>problem.  With 6 systems having outages, it will be interesting to see
>>when various paths/systems come back online and if there is a gating
>>factor in underseas repair gear being available in the region.
>>
>>  - jared
>>
>>-- 
>>Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.
>
>
>
>

Re: Undersea fiber cut after Taiwan earthquake - PCCW / Singtel / KT e tc connectivity disrupted

[Frank Coluccio]

I would expect that some of the affected cables have lost dc power used to drive
repeaters and amplifiers (10 kv d.c.) from their landing stations. Or that is at
least the hope at this time. The WSJ today published a superb article along with
a unusually detailed global route map. See intro along with some comments
concerning the route map (tinyurl): 
--

Quake Damages Undersea Cables,
Disrupting Internet Service in Asia
By JASON DEAN
December 27, 2006 2:36 p.m.

[FAC: Assuming the link below works, the article below contains an excellent
global view of what looks like most, if not all, of the major submarine cable
routes around the world in use today. It's a keeper, IMO, so I suggest
downloading it to your HD. Here's the pdf, which is probably subject to the same
shelf life constraint: http://tinyurl.com/ya45oo ]

BEIJING -- A big earthquake near Taiwan disrupted phone and Internet traffic
across Asia Wednesday, highlighting the fragility of a global telecommunications
system that still relies on vulnerable undersea cables to carry data.

The magnitude 6.7 temblor that struck late Tuesday off Taiwan's southern coast
cut several fiber-optic cables that carry communications traffic through a key
nexus in Asia, connecting Hong Kong and Southeast Asia with Japan and,
ultimately, North America.

Continued at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116719850925860370.html?mod=djemTECH

Enjoy! 

On Thu Dec 28  0:35 , Jared Mauch  sent:

>
>On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:55:25AM +, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
>> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Information seems to suggest that these all have one or other faults  
>> due to the earthquake.  Some probably have more serious problems then  
>> others.
>> 
>> SMW3 (Sea-me-we 3).
>> FNAL and FEA (FLAG North Asia Loop) ;
>> RNAL = Reach North Asia Loop
>> APCN2 (Asia Pacific Network 2)
>> 
>> C2C - Singtel's coast to coast
>> EAC = East Asia Crossing (EAC)
>> 
>> Traffic is gradually coming back through ad-hoc setups and re-routes,  
>> but cable providers are saying minimum 3 weeks for full recovery.
>
>   I've wondered how many boats/subs exist for these repairs
>and if attempting to do them all in parallel is going to be a big
>problem.  With 6 systems having outages, it will be interesting to see
>when various paths/systems come back online and if there is a gating
>factor in underseas repair gear being available in the region.
>
>   - jared
>
>-- 
>Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

Re: Home media servers, AUPs, and upstream bandwidth utilization.

[Frank Coluccio]

>doesn't save much.  A possible countermeasure is to not count off-peak
>traffic (or not as much).  Our charging scheme works like that, but
>our customers are mostly large campus networks,

This is similar to what some schools of economic study suggest in order to
achieve equilibrium while attempting to rationalize theoretical models that are
placed under stress. The problem here, of course, is that economists working on
theoretical models don't have to concern themselves with physics, whereas first
mile network providers do. 

Instead of devising variations of schemes that are based on traffic averaging- 
or
95 percentiles (designed primarily for colocation- and IX Point situations),
access network providers must address customer facing bandwidth utilization and
provisioning issues, and while the issues of upstream transiting and peering are
related, they nonetheless are exogenous to the access network problem. 

The main problem areas affecting the original poster's concerns over the ability
to send traffic in the upstream direction, as I see them: 

[a] the nature and being of telcos' DSL and MSOs' cable modem asymmetrical
network designs, and, 

[b] the unrealistic expectations that most stakeholders have (or the bill of
goods that have been successfully sold by incumbents to the community at large)
that suggests that an equitable exchange of money for services could be obtained
from a model that depends on entirely statistical probabilities.

The ultimate answer to this problem is a lot of discussions and subsequent
actions that will need to be taken. However, at the level of line granularity
that exists at the CO hub or head end terminal gear, the 95 percentile pricing
scheme is not  relevant.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Mon Dec 25 16:50 , Simon Leinen  sent:

>
>Lionel Elie Mamane writes:
>> On Mon, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:44:37AM +, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> That said ISP's should simply have a package saying "50GiB/month
>>> costs XX euros, 100GiB/month costs double" etc. As that covers what
>>> their transits are charging them, nothing more, nothing less.
>
>> I thought IP transit was mostly paid by "95% percentile highest speed
>> over 5 minutes" or something like that these days? Meaning that ISP's
>> costs are maximised if everyone maxes our their line for the same 6%
>> of the time over the month (even if they don't do anything the rest of
>> the time), and minimised if the usage pattern were nicely spread out?
>
>Yes.  With Jeroen's suggestion, there's a risk that power-users'
>consumption will only be reduced for off-peak hours, and then the ISP
>doesn't save much.  A possible countermeasure is to not count off-peak
>traffic (or not as much).  Our charging scheme works like that, but
>our customers are mostly large campus networks, and I don't know how
>digestible this would be to retail ISP consumers.
>-- 
>Simon.

RE: Collocation Access

[Frank Coluccio]

Most list members here will probably find difficulty fathoming this, but during
the Cold War years of the Nineteen Sixties, many telco employees, depending on
the type of work they were engaged in, were actually issued government "Civil
Defense" ID's for the purpose of gaining access to their workplaces and for
transit to contingency assignments during natural disasters and acts of war. 
Long
Lines staff and local operating company switching and transmission staff were
given high priority in those days. I'm not sure exactly when, but I think the
practice was suspended around 1968-9, or so. 

Do you suppose that telecoms and Internet is critical enough to the nation's
infrastructure today that it should carry this level of regard by government?
Say, qualified personnel working in critical sectors be issued "Homeland
Security" ID's? Would such ID's issued by Homeland Security satisfy the 
clearance
requirements for gaining access to collocation centers?

On Tue Oct 24  8:51 , "David Schwartz"  sent:

>
>
>> In recent memory, I can think of two large collocation
>> centers that retain your ID.  One is in Miami and one in New York (I don't
>> think I need to name names, most of you know to which I refer).
>> All others
>> (including AT&T) have never asked to retain my ID.
>
>Then you broke the law, assuming you had a Florida license and you presented
>it to the Miami facility.
>
>Florida law, Title 13 section 322.32(2), "Unlawful use of license" says
>"[i]t is a misdemeanor of the second degree ... for any person ... [t]o lend
>his or her driver's license to any other person or knowingly permit the use
>thereof by another."
>
>DS
>
>

Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for 'generating light energy'

[Frank Coluccio]

Perhaps five or six years ago, Lucent was experimenting with a fiber to the home
application that took the received optical signal and passed it through a
splitter on the customer's premises. One half of the received signal went to the
optical network element's receive circuitry, and the other half to was channeled
to support remote diagnostics, loopbacks and a return path via a MEMS-type 
mirror
assembly. Speculation even existed, at the time, suggesting the use of a 
separate
wavelength for powering purposes, only, thereby solving the lifeline dilemma.
More recently I've come across this release from JDSU, below, which tempers what
even I thought was a bizarre assertion on the part of the Bangalore government:

From: http://www.globalexecutiveforum.net/Photonics.htm

--snip:
"JDSU claims O-to-E conversion efficiency record

"JDSU announced that its Photonic Power Business Unit has achieved a world 
record
in the conversion efficiency of laser light into electrical power. JDSU's 3 volt
and 5 volt gallium arsenide (GaAs) Photovoltaic Power Converter (PPC) has
achieved optical-to-electrical conversion efficiency greater than 50%. This
breakthrough further enables the use of fiber optics to replace copper for power
delivery where isolation from the surrounding environment is essential. Photonic
Power is especially beneficial for cost-effectively driving electronic devices
operating in high-voltage, RF/EMI and magnetic fields where traditional copper
options are more complex or impractical.

"An efficiency of 50% pushes the boundaries of the maximum theoretical limit for
photovoltaic power conversion. This improvement enables more power-hungry
electronics such as transducers, transceivers and sensors to be powered over
fiber. The higher power efficiency also permits remote electronics to be powered
by fiber over longer distances such as tower-mounted installations for cellular
and digital TV relay stations. Other applications are numerous including
underground exploration and medical applications where the isolated power allows
the operation of devices inside strong magnetic fields such as MRI (Magnetic
Resonance Imaging).
"With this breakthrough conversion efficiency, JDSU is better positioned to
deliver solutions to the medical, industrial sensor, and wireless communications
industries," said David Gudmundson, vice president of corporate development for
JDSU. "We believe that the delivery of power over fiber can provide strategic 
and
competitive advantages to a variety of applications that require isolated power
and are looking for copper wire alternatives." 

end snip--

Practical? Who knows. Off topic? Youbetcha. I wouldn't have even brought this up
except to add some balance to what was already an OT and out of control thread 
;)

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Tue Oct 10 13:30 , "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"  sent:

>
>Feh.  Any government with real tax mojo will tax both of them on the 
>gross, not the net.  This isn't the milquetoast VAT, you know.
>
>
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Roy wrote:
>
>>
>> However, since the customer must beam back light as part of the exchange 
>> then you must track the number of pulses in both directions and 
>> determine the difference.  Some days the customer gets more energy and 
>> some days it doesn't.  That should affect the tax.
>>
>>
>>
>
>(OBSerious: I bet it's not true.)
>
>-- 
>http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
>A. Michael Froomkin   |Professor of Law|   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>-->It's warm here.

Re: Watch your replies (was Kremen....)

[Frank Coluccio]

Perhaps the list should be turned into a wiki; and no, while I'd like to, I'm 
not
at this time volunteering to admin ;)

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Wed Sep 13 15:43 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:

>
>> It's insulting
>> when you trim the message to a shorter statement that you are
>> responding to.  The other 18 lines may not have been important to this
>> particular response but they were not content free.
>
>If your content was in any way, interesting, then people
>will have read it in the message that you posted. I see
>no need to repeat a bunch of irrelevant text when I am
>only replying to one point in your email.
>
>Personally, I wish more people would trim away all the
>irrelevant junk when replying.
>
>On the other hand, in the corporate world I find that
>the habit of top posting is very useful to me. I often
>see things that were never intended to be sent to me
>and I often discover that the previous replies in a thread
>betray the fact that the writer did not read or did not
>understand the original message. 
>
>But on a mailing list, trimmed replies are superior.
>
>--Michael Dillon
>
>P.S. are the standards of this list so unclear that
>Darcy and I have to discuss this? Who is right?
>
>

Re: Data Center Wiring Standards

[Frank Coluccio]

I would add to the recommendations already stated by Mark and John the
folllowing: Depending on the dimensions of the colo in question and the length 
of
the cabling runs you plan to install, take note of the distance limitations of
STP for DS1 signals and the in-house coaxial connections for DS3 signals and
higher, which are (were) governed by ANSI/Bellcore, the last time I looked.
Fiber, likewise, must be coordinated with network element interfaces (GBICs, ST,
etc.) and here again distance is a major consideration. The latter may become an
issue in large structures, or in the event that you plan to run media between
buildings, or if you plan to interconnect with service providers at the f-o 
level
(Layer1).

For your optical media and connection hardware (patch panels, raceways, etc.),
have a long hard talk with at least two reputable fiber optic cable suppliers
(e.g., Corning, CommScope, Sumitomo, etc.) and develop an understanding about 
the
limitations and advantages of the various s-m and m-m options you have available
to you, per the types of solutions you need to implement and the distances they
dictate. Incoming fiber from the street (dark fiber providers, included) will be
single-mode, primarily, but the preponderance of your in-house cabling between
switches, routers and servers, if fiber distances are indicated, will be
multi-mode, requiring a different patch bay selection. 

Where distances permit (<100 meter channels) UTP should suffice for Ethernet
speeds up to 10Gb/sec now, with 10Gb/sec (10GBASE-T) ratified only recently (I'm
quite certain), but I suggest reading the following article from Cabling
Installation & Maintenance Magazine, just the same. 

http://tinyurl.com/mrack

Note, Cat5e and vanilla Cat6 will not suffice (perhaps a Cat6A will, not sure at
this stage, but do your homework before purchasing anyone's Cat7)  for 10GbE (it
may work, but your hardware vendors will not honor warranties when problems
arise), so be prepared to make some long range planning decisions in coming to
terms with a cabling plant that's going to last you a while. HTH.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Fri Sep  8 23:31 , John L Lee  sent:

>
>
>
>  
>  
>
>
>Rick,
>
>
>
>The organization and standards you are looking for are:
>
>
>
>BICSI  -  http://www.bicsi.org/ and TIA/EIA 568 et al for structured
>cabling design for low voltage distribution.
>
>
>
>The BICSI organization has training and certification for RCDD
>Registered Communications Distribution Designer
>
>
>
>A BICSI article that is on there web site about data center design is
>http://www.bicsi.org/Content/Files/PDF/link2006/Kacperski.pdf.
>
>
>
>TIA/EIA 568(ab) how ever many they are up to discuss structured cabling
>design for UTP/STP/fiber/coax including patch cables single and multi
>pair UTP/STP/fiber  patch panels,  HVAC control, fire system control
>and security systems.
>
>
>
>John (ISDN) Lee 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rick Kunkel wrote:
>
>
>  Heya folks,
>
>I hope this is on-topic.  I read the charter, and it falls somewhere along
>the fuzzy border I think...
>
>Can anyone tell me the standard way to deal with patch panels, racks, and
>switches in a data center used for colocation?  I've a sneaking suspicion
>that we're doing it in a fairly non-scalable way.  (I am not responsible
>for the current method, and I think I'm glad to say that.)  Strangely
>enough, I can find like NO resources on this.  I've spent the better part
>of two hours looking.
>
>Right now, we have a rack filled with nothing but patch panels.  We have
>some switches in another rack, and colocation customers scattered around
>other racks.  When a new customer comes in, we run a long wire from their
>computer(s) and/or other device(s) to the patch panel.  Then, from the
>appropriate block connectors on the back of the panel, we run another wire
>that terminates in a RJ-45 to plug into the switch.
>
>Sounds bonkers I think, doesn't it?
>
>My thoughts go like this:  We put a patch panel in each rack.  Each of
>these patch panels is permanently (more or less) wired to a patch panel in
>our main patch cabinet.  So, essentially what you've got is a main patch
>cabinet with a patch panel that corresponds to a patch panel in each other
>cabinet.  Making connection is cinchy and only requires 3-6 foot
>off-the-shelf cables.
>
>Does that sound more correct?
>
>I talked to someone else in the office here, and they believe that they've
>seen it done with a switch in each cabinet, although they couldn't
>remember is there was a patch panel as well.  If you're running 802.1q
>trunks between a bunch of switches (no patch-panels needed), I can see
>that working too, I suppose.
>
>Any standards?  Best practices?  Suggestions?  Resources, in the form of
>books, web pages, RFCs, or white papers?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Rick Kunkel
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>

Re: Hot weather and power outages continue

[Frank Coluccio]

There are a few tens of thousand families at this time around the country who
wouldn't see any humor in this. Local to me, the problems that began eight days
ago in Queens NY persist to this day, and the best ETAs now being given by the
City and Con Ed is at least two more days. But that's what was projected last
Friday, or three days ago. 

Some lawmakers in the affected districts are calling for the resignation of Con
Ed's CEO, while some blackout victims are calling for his imprisonment.

http://tinyurl.com/oge8n

The article doesn't go far enough to inform the reader that many of the
"restored" residential and small business units that are holding their own (as
opposed to sputtering out within two hours, like many that were placed back onto
the grid) are being fed by a slew of portable truck-mounted generators that are
tied directly into the local low-voltage feeder networks going to customer
locations.  

A report on CNN (IIRC) earlier today focused on a range of "hot-spots" around 
the
country, from Beverly Hills to St. Louis to New England, noting that for the 
most
part the electric power problems that are being encountered (as roads and rails
buckle from the heat) do NOT point to supply as much as they do to the inability
of distribution networks in the last mile to withstand the increased loads being
caused by mounting demand from air conditioning (and while no other application
was mentioned at that point, you've got to know what other drains on power went
through my mind).  

As a society we've already taken ample note of the aging (in many instances,
crumbling) infrastructure, ranging from sewer systems, roads and rails, water
tunnels, bridges and so on that are still working decades beyond their time. Has
anyone given serious focus to the underspaces and overheads that house the
nation's last mile electrical distribution systems, in toto? If so, what does it
say about Queens' ability to handle summer loads? 

Frank 



On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> Come on Sean, this "very few disruptions" stuff is below your usual
> standards. The least you can do to help us pass the time in this damn heat
> is to recount a few good stories about routers you could scramble eggs on.
> :)

there is a funny story of some dial devices on fire, and still passing
packets...
)


Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

Re: Final report: national diversity assurance initiative

[Frank Coluccio]

It may be ridiculous and incredible, as you suggest, but, in an ironic way it
also opens the door to a discussion on nationalizing the 'Net's backbone
infrastructure ;-)




Christian Kuhtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

"Due to the cost structures for these projects, the
telecommunications carriers believe that funding for the scoping
effort and the implementation of an automated solution would need to
come from the Federal government or some other external source prior
to project implementation."

.. and not afraid to ask for handouts either to fix their own
backoffice challenges..

In a word: ridiculous, and flat out incredible.


On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

>
>
> ATIS has issued its final reports about its circuit national
> diversiety
> assurance initiative.
>
> "The NDAI report confirmed our suspicions that diversity
> assurance is
> not for the meek," Malphrus added. "It is expensive and requires
> commitment by the customer to work closely with carriers in
> performing
> due diligence. Until the problem is solved, circuit route diversity
> should not be promoted as a general customer best practice."
>
> Press release:
> http://www.atis.org/PRESS/pressreleases2006/031506.htm
>
> Report:
> http://www.atis.org/ndai/
>

Sean: Accept my Mea Culpa

[Frank Coluccio]

List,

In a demonstration of irony in its purest form, given the fact that the 
attribute
of 'trust' was discussed in this thread upstream, it would appear to the
unknowing that I betrayed the trust of Sean Donelan by copying an offlist 
message
he sent to me and pasting it to this list. Sean noted in a subsequent reply: 

"I guess forwarding private messages to public lists should be expected."

I did, in fact, inadvernently copy and paste a private message to the list in 
one
of the contortions I have to go through in order to get a plain editor version 
of
my message to him, but it was unintentional, and certainly not a betrayal of 
trust.

Fortunately, no real harm that I can discern was done, but I apologize to Sean,
in any event, for the mishap.

Frank

The Backhoe: A Real Cyberthreat? [ & Re: cyber-redundancy ]

[Frank Coluccio]

>>Trust is a very nebulous concept.<<

And mistrust is a far less nebulous concept, obviously. It seems to me that you
will dispel just about anything I present in this regard. Do you trust banks 
that
hold your escrow funds during home purchasing? How does Iron Mountain gain the
trust of its enterprise customers who archive their IP, tapes, sofware and 
family
jewels with them? The following is very interesting to me:

>There is a working group involving several carriers, 
>financial institutions and the government to create 
>something for customers with these types of requirements. 

Which standards body are you referring to that has such a working group? 


Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sent: Fri Jan 20 19:51:

If CPA's were trusted, why aren't there big six CPA firms anymore? Who
was the CPA for ENRON? If you trusted them to audit ENRON's financial
books, would you also trust them to audit their route information? Why
do you think CPA firms would do a better job doing at auditing ENRON's
routes than they did their financial books?

Trust is a very nebulous concept.

Every industry opposes more rules and regulations. Do we really want
ordering an ordinary telephone line to require as much paperwork as
getting a mortgage? On the other hand, as you know, when you actually
read all that paperwork, tariffs, standards, technical practices, etc;
carriers don't promise very much. And they usually deliver on that
promise.

Banks refuse to promise they will never be robbed, and carriers
refuse to promise their circuits will never go down.

There is a working group involving several carriers, financial
institutions and the government to create something for customers
with these types of requirements. The challenge is for everyone
is deciding what it actually means, how to implement it, and what
will it cost. And even after all that, circuits will still go
down.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

Re: The Backhoe: A Real Cyberthreat? [ & Re: cyber-redundancy ]

[Frank Coluccio]

Responding to both Sean Gorman's and Sean Donelan's posts:

---

Sean Gorman, 

In your earlier reply you stated that Verizon will tell me that a cable is
diversely placed, when in reality it is only 2mm away from the original path.
Then you proceed to describe the considerations and the makeup of a data base
that Verizon (using them as an example here) should use to document cable
placements in order to give me the information that would be  what? Which is
it? I'm either naive to ask for a route statement, so I shouldn't bother. OR, I
trust that they're going to be straightforward and wind up getting whacked with
bogus information in the end, anyway? 

We've written numerous asset-tracking systems that list dozens of attributes,
starting with geo-referenced path information at Layer Zero (spaces, pathways,
roads, etc.) that is integrated parametrically with CAD software, and ending 
with
the fire ratings of the sleeves and innerducts entering buildings, and
everything, including all media attributes, in between. This is not a trivial
undertaking when done to the demands of the craft (in addition to those that
might be of interest to someone flying at 30,000 ft), but every cable pulling
service provider/carrier/entity worth its salt has or should have one. Whether
they are kept up to date or not is another story, entirely. To this point, some
systems I've seen possess information that is so out of date and in such 
disarray
that they actual represent a primary reason (shame) why an SP would not want to
make them vieaable to end customers for viewing. But that's another story all 
its
own. 

---

Sean Donelan., you make a good point by comparing financial institutions with
carriers with respect to holding back information from one another, and 
sometimes
to the customer, as well. You'll note in my earlier post I made allowances for a
third party ("or agents") for this very reason, although I didn't elaborate on
that point at the time. I've seen instances when trusted third parties, usually 
a
then- big six CPA firm, would be mutually agreed to as the party of choice to
hold and confirm route information for a client. I’ve seen this done for tower
righs of way and for fiber optic paths, but nothing like this that I am aware of
ever became widely available as a broking service to the general public, 
although
I think it should. Have you come across this sort of arrangement in the past? 
Anyone?

I've also been blessed with having to work through both of these industry groups
on a single project. For example, I once orchestrated the client-side design and
buildout of two IRU facilities (called optical fiber services, of OFS) back in
1987 for a financial institution across the street and down the block from the
NYSE to the Teleport on Staten Island. Since Teleport (and TCG) was partially
owned by Merrill Lynch back then, along with WU, NYCity and the Port Authority 
of
NJ/NY, and the entrance point to the site was in Merrill's own building, I had 
to
arrange for alternate penetration points and trenching from the perimeter of the
park to a new building that was designed and constructed simply to circumvent 
the
sharing of space and duct facilities with the client's chief competitor. 

To make this story more interesting, the two routes on the NJ side (which the
routes traversed in order to get back to the Holland and PATH Tunnels on their
way to 60 Hudson and the WTC, respectively) had a single cross-over point 
(single
point of failure) in a large PSE&G vault in Journal Sq., which I refused to sign
off on. I never would have detected this fault, except for my personal
inspections of the physical route constructions against the design documents I
was given by all parties concerned. It wound up costing seven digits to trench a
path to an agreed upon distance from the vault before an order to commence
pulling cable through those sections received a final go ahead. And so it went 
...

Frank





=

On Fri Jan 20 18:11 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:



The difference being the financial system can use the knowledge to make
themselves more resilient.

How does the bank customer use the information you listed to make themselves
more resilient?

Further, the banks are a fairly trusted and well regulated group.

There are a good number of bank customers that are not good guys.

Is there a fear the banks will use provider information for malicious ends?

Is that the reason the providers will not give the information?

Could it be they do not want customers to know most of their SONET rings are
collapsed?




- Original Message -
From: Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: The Backhoe: A Real Cyberthreat? [ & Re: cyber-redundancy ]

>
> O

Re: The Backhoe: A Real Cyberthreat?

[Frank Coluccio]

>My argument simply is if this kind of awareness 
>can be made more broadly available you end up with 
>a more resilient infrastructure overall.

Sean, would you care to list the route, facility, ownership and customer
attributes of the data base that you'd make public, and briefly explain the
access controls you would impose on same? 

If this is not what you originally intended, then please show me the way ... 
thanks.


Frank 

On Fri Jan 20 9:19 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:



As you mentioned before this is largely because the customer (SIAC) was 
savvy
enough to set the reuirements and had the money to do it. A lot of that saviness
came from lessons learned from 9/11 and fund transfer. Similar measures were
taken with DoD's GIG-BE, again because the customer was knowlegable and had the
financial clout to enforce the requirements and demand the information.  An
anonymous data pool is just one suggestion of a market based mechanism to do it.

- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:37 am
Subject: 

>
> > Imagine if 60 Hudson and 111 8th
> > were to go down at the same time? Finding means to mitigate this
> > threat is not frivolously spending the taxpayer's money, IMO;
> > although perhaps removing fiber maps is not the best way to
> > address this.
>
> No, removing fiber maps will not address this problem
> now that you have pinpointed the addresses that they
> should attack.
>
> Separacy is the key to addressing this problem. Separate
> circuits along separate routes connecting separate routers
> in separate PoPs. Separacy should be the mantra, not
> obscurity.
>
> End-to-end separation of circuits is how SFTI and other
> financial industry networks deal with the issue of continuity
> in the face of terrorism and other disasters. In fact, now
> that trading is mediated by networked computers, the physical
> location of the exchange is less vulnerable to terrorists because
> the real action takes place in redundant data centers connected
> by diverse separate networks. Since 9-11 was a direct attack on
> the financial services industry, people within the industry
> worldwide, have been applying the lessons learned in New York.
> Another 9-11 is simply not possible today.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
>
>
> 

Re: The Backhoe: A Real Cyberthreat? [ & Re: cyber-redundancy ]

[Frank Coluccio]

What I meant to state in my closing sentence of my last post, but didn't catch
myself in time, was:

" ... to ask on an official or unofficial level, whatever works."

--

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile
 

Re: The Backhoe: A Real Cyberthreat? [ & Re: cyber-redundancy ]

[Frank Coluccio]

> Imagine if 60 Hudson and 111 8th
> were to go down at the same time? Finding means to mitigate this
> threat is not frivolously spending the taxpayer's money,

This is not only a fair question, it's the very dilemma that some of us faced
during and immediately following September 11, 2001 when laying down routes into
NJ and north to midtown from the Wall Street area of NY City held new 
challenges.
The attacks on that grim date and its after effects revealed that sites no 
longer
had necessarily to be "taken down" in the traditional sense, per se, to be
inaccessible. It was no longer only the physical integrity of building property
and underground infrastructure that was vulnerable, but the very "access" to
those facilities from a broader geographic footprint perspective, as well, was
seen as something new that had to be dealt with. 

To answer Sean Donelan's question, yes, enterprise customers and/or their agents
_do _need to have specific information on the routes in which their leased
facilities (and even dark fiber builds) are placed, ephemeral as those data 
might
be at times due to SP outside plant churn. They need this data in order to 
ensure
that they're not only getting the diversity/redundancy/separacy that they're
paying for, but because of the more fundamental reason being that it is the only
way they have to provide maximal assurances to stakeholders of the 
organization's
survivability. 

All of that having been said, up-to-date information on physical routes and
common spaces and the cables that reside within them remains among the most
problematic and opaque issues that enterprise network builders and SPs alike 
have
to deal with today in their quest to design and manage survivable networks. NDAs
aren't going away, and the anal nature of carriers isn't about to change anytime
soon. The best information gathering approach to double check any information
that "is" provided is very often knowing the right people to ask on an official
level, and being patient enough to wait for the right moment to ask.

Frank 

Re: QoS for ADSL customers

[Frank Coluccio]

Sean, I think your post highlights a major, yet very
seldom discussed, distortion of some of the more recent issues that surface
when discussing neutrality. And these are widely shared in the industry, imo. IMO, you
have adequately characterized the matter, as many would regard it today. But I,
along with a growing number of others no longer see neutrality in the abstract.
Rather, it's about choices that both end users and non-dominant competitors
have -- or more to the point, don't have-- in invoking their own desires for
isochronous-like performance, or whatever performance profile they wish, when
they need it, and relegate best effort to other times OR, in fact, maintain
only a best-effort environment, as the case may be.

Given the unpredictable nature of end-to-end over Internet resources, focus
generally shifts to the part of the experience that is most predictable and
controllable. And that part is the end user's access loop section to his or her
ISP. Beyond that point of interconnection it has always been assumed that,
within acceptable percentile ranges, transit and core resources were more than
adequate to support whatever the user had to throw at it. In fact, this may
have been true in the majority of cases in the past, but today, with speeds
being what they are in broadband I'm sure that the tide has reversed itself for
some domains of networking, or in some percentage of all cases. But let's
assume that it hasn't for a moment.

As I see the problem today, the neutrality issue has more to do with whether
end users themselves are empowered to add to the print sizes in their yellow
page ads, when they so choose. Short of this capability, at the very least
users do not want their own applications de-prioritized by vertically
integrated providers of pipe.

Users are becoming more educated and skilled in the ways of networking all the
time. And where they are lacking, the state of the art makes it possible
through auto-config, self-healing and auto-negotiation for the end user to
begin invoking their own preferences of infrastructure and traffic shaping
through the use of residential gateways and home servers, for example, which
capabilities would be extended even further if head end terminal gear were
designed for such purposes, as well.

Increasingly, I think we'll find over time that the issue over neutrality is
not only about the top-down perspective, but about the bottom having a say in
the shaping of channel facilities, too.

Frank


---


From: Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue Nov 29 12:56: 


On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Kim Onnel wrote:

> The links are now almost always fully utilized, we want to do some QoS to

> cap our ADSL downstream, to give room for the Corp. customers traffic to

> flow without pain.


While some people will cry network neutrality and think the Yellow Pages

must sell only one size listing, some people are willing to pay for

differentiated service. Trying to classify "bad" traffic can be

done using products like Sandvine. But it may be easier to classify "premium"

traffic and mark it for special handling, and then treating everything

that isn't marked as premium traffic as best effort traffic.


But expect great wailing and gnashing of teeth over setting or changing

DSCP/TOS bits or creating different queues for different traffic. Should

DSCP bits in IP headers be treated like TTL bits which are modified by

the network. Should ISPs use anti-spoofing techniques similar to prevent

the use of arbitrary IP addresses to control DSCP/TOS values in packet

headers?


Most routers already give priority to some types of traffic, such as

routing update packets.











Frank A. Coluccio

DTI Consulting Inc.

212-587-8150 Office

347-526-6788 Mobile

Re: What do we mean when we say 'competition?'

[Frank Coluccio]

In some areas VZ will leave the copper in place if you simply ask, and in some
places you must forcefully "insist." 

I'm aware of a case in the Tampa area where a subscriber had to "insist." While
he did wind up keeping his POTS lines intact, while adding a second feed in the
way of fiber for Internet access (and video, if it ever gets/got there?), alone,
he advised me that this involves maintaining two accounts with Verizon. And
naturally, this means two monthly bills, as well. One bill will be for the FiOS
service(s), which is(are) the Internet and TV service being offered by
Verizon.net, and the other account (the subscriber's original account) for 
POTS. 

If you suspect that the telco in doing this is merely trying to keep its 
business
functions separated along the lines of switched circuit vs. IP, and for all of
the regulatory reasons having to do with positioning that that implies, then
you'd be 100% correct.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile
---

> In (at least) the Long Island, NY market, Verizon FTTH/FIOS installers
> physically cut and decommission the copper upon fiber install.
> Bye-bye DSL competition. Since they won't bring back the copper
> even you don't like the FIOS service, it's permanent. ISTR that
> the fiber doesn't carry the same restrictions on Verizon as copper
> did, which is a big incentive (for them) to roll out FIOS that way.

My understanding is that there is a fairly small number of pots
circuits (2?) that they can bring in over the B-PON, and that moreover
ISDN BRI and hicap (eg. repeatered or HDSL DS1 service) are entirely
incompatible.

In Virginia, there's anecdotal evidence that suggests that they'll
leave the copper upon request, and won't even try to remove it if you
still need it for service.

Guess you know what to do. :)

---rob

Re: What happen in Russia?

[Frank Coluccio]

re: "Fixed already. There was cable ct bteween Moscow and St. Petersburg."

Admittedly OT, but interesting for purpose of providing contrast, from Ghana:

http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/current1.html

- Ghana Telecom (GT) has ‘lost’ the underground network cable that provides
communications to a number of major government offices in the Osu Castle in
Accra, according to The Statesman newspaper. Bulldozer operative Collins Antwi 
is
currently in police custody for causing unlawful damage to state property after
his machine allegedly tore through the GT cabling as he worked on a site close 
to
the Guinean Embassy. Around 7,000 users are thought to have been cut off
following Antwi’s actions, including workers at the National Police 
Headquarters,
the National Fire Service and the Bureau of National Investigations. The
Statesman says that with the network down the running of the country will be a
‘Herculean task’.

Frank


- Original Message -
From: "Alexei Roudnev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:35 AM
Subject: What happen in Russia?


>
> What is wrong with Internet in Russia? Looks as they experience overall
> slowness (even phone providers are affected).
>

Re: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations?

[Frank Coluccio]

re: ""what did your electricians say ..."

Back to lurking in a moment, but I should note that fire and safety code issues
are so shrouded in matters of locality and jurisdiction, at times, and bound up
in industry and governmental standards that are so esotric in nature, that the
typical electrical worker, and I dare say even most licensed electricians and IT
consultants, are totally unaware of the specifics, or they are given to gross
misconceptions and half-truths. This is so, not so much due to the complex 
nature
of the matter at hand, but due to a lack of regular exposure to it. Nufsed.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Wed Sep 14 10:58 , 'Hannigan, Martin' sent:



I asked him "what did your electricians say" and the entire
ground conversation went south.

Good post. Thanks.



--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]','','','')">[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Frank Coluccio
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:52 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations?
>
>
>
> There's not much left to interpretation and preferences here, aside
>
> from the choice of medium to be used. I should also add that
> some of the
>
> advice that has been posted in this thread, as well-meaning
> and thoughtful as it
>
> has been, has been downright dangerous to follow.
>
>
>
> If one is going to run copper cable between buildings, or outdoors, in
>
> general, in lieu of the better alternatives of fiber or wireless, then
>
> there are local and national electrical, fire and safety
> codes in effect
>
> that spell out what you must do, enforceable under the penalty of law.
>
> And while certain of those precautions have been spelled out
> upstream in
>
> piecemeal fashion, none thus far has been entirely accurate
> or complete.
>
>
>
> Yes, when running copper between buildings, lightning
> arresters/circuit
>
> - i.e., protection - are a must, but they must be placed
> within a couple
>
> of feet of the building point of entry, or POE. Think about
> it. Does it
>
> make great sense to protect a cable from surges deep within
> the interior
>
> of a building if the cable traverses vast distances on premises
>
> unprotected between the point of entry and the terminal point.
>
> Therefore, the stipulation of performing grounding, bonding and surge
>
> protections at the point where the cable enters the building (in
>
> potentially at addition points, elsewhere, when required).
>
>
>
> Also, if the copper cable is "armored" with a corrugated steal jacket,
>
> as many outside plant cables are, then the shielding (the armor) must
>
> also be "bonded" to earth ground at the POE, as well. So the issue
>
> becomes one not only of grounding, but bonding, as well. And while I'm
>
> on that subject, be aware that many FIBER OPTIC cables designed for
>
> inter-building/outside plant use are also armored and must be
> treated in
>
> the same manner.
>
>
>
> BICSI (Building Industries Consulting Systems International)
>
> www.bicsi.org does a good job of rolling up all of the relevant
>
> standards, as do a number of other sources. For some good coverage of
>
> safety, grounding and bonding principles and techniques see the
>
> following Structured Cabling Supplement reference by Panduit
> (taken from
>
> the Cisco CCNA Networking Academy Program)
>
>
>
> http://www.tecmiami.com/cisco/extra/CCNA1_CS_1_en.pdf
>
>
>
> Frank A. Coluccio
>
> DTI Consulting Inc.
>
> 212-587-8150 Office
>
> 347-526-6788 Mobile
>
>
> 

Re: CAT5 surge/lightning strike protection recommendations?

[Frank Coluccio]

There's not much left to interpretation and preferences here, aside
from the choice of medium to be used. I should also add that some of the
advice that has been posted in this thread, as well-meaning and thoughtful as it
has been, has been downright dangerous to follow.

If one is going to run copper cable between buildings, or outdoors, in
general, in lieu of the better alternatives of fiber or wireless, then
there are local and national electrical, fire and safety codes in effect
that spell out what you must do, enforceable under the penalty of law.
And while certain of those precautions have been spelled out upstream in
piecemeal fashion, none thus far has been entirely accurate or complete.

Yes, when running copper between buildings, lightning arresters/circuit
- i.e., protection - are a must, but they must be placed within a couple
of feet of the building point of entry, or POE. Think about it. Does it
make great sense to protect a cable from surges deep within the interior
of a building if the cable traverses vast distances on premises
unprotected between the point of entry and the terminal point.
Therefore, the stipulation of performing grounding, bonding and surge
protections at the point where the cable enters the building (in
potentially at addition points, elsewhere, when required).

Also, if the copper cable is "armored" with a corrugated steal jacket,
as many outside plant cables are, then the shielding (the armor) must
also be "bonded" to earth ground at the POE, as well. So the issue
becomes one not only of grounding, but bonding, as well. And while I'm
on that subject, be aware that many FIBER OPTIC cables designed for
inter-building/outside plant use are also armored and must be treated in
the same manner.

BICSI (Building Industries Consulting Systems International)
www.bicsi.org does a good job of rolling up all of the relevant
standards, as do a number of other sources. For some good coverage of
safety, grounding and bonding principles and techniques see the
following Structured Cabling Supplement reference by Panduit (taken from
the Cisco CCNA Networking Academy Program)

http://www.tecmiami.com/cisco/extra/CCNA1_CS_1_en.pdf 

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

RE: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale

[Frank Coluccio]

Responding to all previous messages in this and the original thread:

I note that "Way OT" was added to my original subject heading, and
indeed for good cause because this discussion has veered off the course
it could have taken in some ways, and that's okay, too.

My associating the name "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and the news release about former
cable ISP @Home's sale of its domain names was more a matter of
curiosity than it was actually suggesting there was a connection between
the two. Although, the timing of both leaves me wondering, still,
because up to this past week I had not seen the name @home, or even
@work for that matter, used in almost five or six years, anywhere
outside the context of discussions that were historical in nature.

IMO, there's more to be considered here than whether this is just
another example of pork distribution, which I suspect it is, in the
accepted vernacular. Meaning, the spending of funds that result from
marathon congressional horse trading and voting in order to get rid of
funds that have been allocated for certain (in some cases, new) causes,
lest those funds be lost forever in the spirit of "use it or lost it,"
both now and forever more.

Sometimes the ends to these rituals actually turn out to be noble, and
sometimes they can be seen as a cause for outrage. In the case at hand
I'm neither showering Rubin and Clinton with praise nor condemning their
motivations in any way. Rather, I have serious questions as to what they
are doing and how they have set out to accomplish their goals, and
probably just as importantly, the fact that have they labeled their
initiative as one that would bridge the digital divide.

I see two issues I may want to pursue further --elsewhere of course,
since this is indeed "Way OT" for this venue-- because they may prove
detrimental to the cause of end-to-end networking, even if a relatively
few more broadband lines do get built in the process. 

If you have been following the tightening noose around anything that
smacks of being open lately, and view the timing of this action against
the backdrop of recent FCC rulings, which are causing some ISPs to
seriously begin wondering about their very survival and where they will
get their next HSI lines from to provide to their customers, you must
then conclude that the secondary beneficiaries of the initiative will at
some point be incumbent service providers. For, who else will be left to
provide fiber and cable services by the time these homes are built and
ready to be inhabited, save for the small number of muninets that have
already been built, and maybe to a similar degree, those of WISPs?

When such an initiative is announced proclaiming that $1 Billion dollars
will be spent on "bridging the digital divide," when in fact it is
federal housing and urban development projects that happen to include
the installation of residential inside wiring and an undisclosed plan
for how "broadband" service providers would be paid, (without also
mentioning that it will ensure that structural foundations, carpentry,
plastering, plumbing, lighting and electrical work will also be
covered), it gives cause to detractors of municipal networking to shoot
down further, legitimate proposals that are relatively "undiluted" in
comparative terms, efforts to promote Internet access. In effect, it
gives the nay sayers of muninets something to point to when proclaiming
"enough is enough", and that sufficient public funds have already been
spent on such programs. 

As a consultant who at times receives feelers and RFIs from landlords of
housing complexes, community leaders and apartment owners' boards of
directors who are applying for local, state and federal development
funding to upgrade their properties (which are sometimes nothing more
than slums that they picked up for a song), I can state unequivocally
that one of the first bullet points to appear in their executive
summaries in order to receive meritorious recognition from those who
hold the purse strings is the fact that their newly re-done units will
be "Internet ready." Internet read is a euphemism that means that those 
units will be fully wired with Cat6 and coaxial cabling. It's gotten
competitive to the point where some take it a step farther and enter
into agreements with the incumbent telco and cable operators, or they go
to both the telco and the National Cable Television Cooperative (NCTC)
and create their own private cable companies (PCOs) to ensure that
residents who desire triple play services can have it delivered to them
at the stroke of a couple of keys and a credit check.

Which leads me to my last point of skepticism in this post. Where and
what percentage of the funds being allocated under this [EMAIL PROTECTED]
initiative is the money going? I'd be surprised if the in-home wiring went
above 1% of the total Billion cited. How much of it will be spent on
recurring rental fees for broadband lines? Computer hardware and terminal
gear? Will said funding

re: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale

[Frank Coluccio]

re: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale

Interesting that you'd bring this up. The federal pork trasfer of $1 Billion 
that
was announced on Sunday to "bridge the digital divide" references an
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" program as a part of its underpinning.

From: http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.php/679032.html

---snip:

LISC/NEF and One Economy Launch $1 Billion Initiative to Bridgethe Digital
Divide; Sen. Hillary Clinton Helps Unveil Initiative

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Contact: Leslie Kerns of Solomon McCown & Co., 617-933-5013 or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or Susan Sheehan of Vogel Communications, 503-449-1666
or [EMAIL PROTECTED]

NEW YORK, Aug. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Efforts to close the technological gap
between America's haves and have-nots will get a boost this week. Local
Initiatives Support Corp. (LISC) and its subsidiary the National Equity Fund
(NEF) are partnering with One Economy to launch "[EMAIL PROTECTED]," a $1 
billion
initiative that will build more than 15,000 affordable homes with high-speed
digital Internet connectivity and provide low-income families personal access to
computers and technology services. The initiative expects to connect nearly
100,000 people to the vast advantage of the Internet.

---end snip

It makes for some interesting reading for those of you tracking where your tax
dollars are going. I'd be interested in reading some comments on this 
initiative,
either on the board or by email.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

=

On Wed Aug 10 16:44 , "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" sent:


I know this is horribly off-topic, but seeing a reference to
@Home kind made me a little nostalgic. :-)

[snip]

Apparently former high-speed Internet provider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
once felt likewise. But At Home Liquidating Trust, successor
to the once high-flying Internet darling [EMAIL PROTECTED], said
Wednesday it is selling the former broadband company's 119
domain names.

[snip]

   
http://news.com.com/ExciteHomes+119+domain+names+up+for+sale/2100-1030_3-5826807.html


- ferg

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
==

Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers

[Frank Coluccio]

Gordon Cook asked:

--

>>How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand
they better build their own infrastructure.
because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the
equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good
execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your
shareholder...never mind the public at large?<<

-- 

Assuming you're referring to a soup-to-nuts physical layer network,
building one's own infrastructure isn't a panacea, and it is not even
very often a doable proposition for organizations outside of the
government and for companies outside of the Fortunes.

Taken to the extreme, customer owned networks, if used as the sole
source of transport, defies both the type of robustness that we seek -
unless multiple networks per customer are built - and the very form of
inter-working demanding of any-to-any end-to-end reach.

So, unless it's a situation where great economies can be achieved in
support of applications that are relatively local to (or resident solely
within the borders of) an enterprise, maybe it's not the end all and be
all that we sometimes make it out to be. For a University and Research
Consortium, fine. For a forty-state branch banking network that
must reach 42,347 end points, with most of those end points producing
traffic for a single T1 or T3 line, or even a GbE line over an extended
distance, it would appear on the surface "not," although each point
solution requires its own evaluation. Volume discounts, the degree of
diversity required and security issues all come into play, to name just
three areas of concern.

Rather, private builds are great for spot solutions, even very large
ones, that are relatively constant between two or more points when those
points are, likewise, constant and not constantly being relocated. But
IMO they do little in the way of extending reach beyond the borders of
the enterprise. For service providers, on the other hand, it's more of a
financial consideration, assessing tradeoffs against perceived future
pricing trends and traffic volumes. Again, to buy, rent or build is
something that can only be determined at the time of need, and based on
the particulars of the enterprise or service provider.

That said, the situation I addressed initially highlights a case where the
market had already begun taking care of some of the critical needs of
diversity and redundancy for the universe of North American (or at least
US) users, which are now about to be trashed in order to satisfy the
goals of two corporate entities.

Does this make any sense? Of course not. But viewed against the backdrop
of this past week's FCC releases, the trend, despite how irrational and
ludicrous it may appear, is ringing clear as day. And so it goes ...
---

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
347-526-6788 Mobile
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--

On Mon Aug 8 16:17 , Gordon Cook sent:


So although we have the technology to build networks controlled at
the edge and networks that are less subject to failure,
the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist that
we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies.
Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities of
economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the
switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of
failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco
router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever
failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber.
Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad.

How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at
infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted.

How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand
they better build their own infrastructure.
because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the
equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good
execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your
shareholder...never mind the public at large?



=
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ
08618 USA
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscription
info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Where is
New Wealth
Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml
=====




On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote:

>
> All,
>
> Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially
> interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of
> the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that
> I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be
> to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in
> both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal

Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers

[Frank Coluccio]

All,

Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially
interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of
the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that
I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be
to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in
both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for
redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport
layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed. 

These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of
routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in order to
allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to kick in.
In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that business
continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to mention
service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a fare-thee-well,
where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How
long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What will
become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to either
business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered due to
concentration of powers?

While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where their
services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number of places, it
is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from
disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is
especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' However,
the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or even copper) loop
providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy-back
atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering. 

But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by Verizon,
SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are still possible.

Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the number of
physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once
integration is completed users will find themselves riding over systems
that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common set of NMS
constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher
levels in the stack.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--

> Eight or nine people I had
> talked to thought they had geographically distinct
> ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable
> when the second cut took it down hard.

Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy
seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into
their contracts?

Or was this type of service "good enough"?

--Michael Dillon
 

OT: Thanks Everyone 4 the EMail Observations and Tips/eom

[Frank Coluccio]

Re: Enable BIND cache server to resolve chinese domain name?

[Frank Coluccio]

Steve, I think that what it boils down to is how many times do you want to split
Metcalfe before it becomes self-defeating. Similar arguments have surfaced
recently due to the emergence of proprietary vertical voip applications such s
Skype. If one is appeased simplmy by communing with a fixed set of users of a
given community mind set, then it works and everyone is happy. Beyond that? One
could be left sucking wind. 

Frank

ps - I've been advised on several occasions by Randy Bush alone that whenever I
post to NANOG I leave microsoft artifacts such as ( ^ } in my wake. I don't see
it myself. If this happens to be the case in this writing, then would someone
please email me indicating so? Appreash .. 

re: NTIA will control the root name servers?

[Frank Coluccio]

I received the following from a fellow forum member who happens to be living in
Germany after I posted the same story, elsewhere:

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21469219

ORSN (European Open Root Server Network)
http://www.orsn.net/

The Open Root Server Network (ORSN) is working on the task of guaranteeing the
internet supply in form of an additional DNS server network with a legacy root
zone for ISP networks in Europe.

The network coordinated by the ICANN, consisting of 13 root servers distributed
among almost the entire world, is as far as we are concerned a high-quality and
sure solution. However, the locations of the separate Root server systems are 
(on
the basis of the development history of the Internet) very dependent on the
U.S.A. Thus, everybody living in Europe depends on the fact that the connections
to the Root servers are available and reachable for the name resolution.

The failure of one or more systems in the U.S.A already shows problems with the
name resolution: DNS inquiries are substantially delayed and the still 
attainable
Root servers have to process these inquiries as well. The operators (ISC) of
f.root-servers.net describe on their web page the servers load with the 
following
words: F answers more than 272 million DNS queries per day, making it one of the
busiest DNS servers in the world.

A complete blackout of this network is virtually impossible but completely
different problems appear as well: for example in the case of political 
conflicts
in the Near East or in Europe. The U.S.A (under the current or any future
administration) are theoretically and practically able to control "our" access 
to
contents of the Internet and are also able to limit them. A manipulation of the
Root zone could cause that the whole name space .DE is not attainable any more
for the remaining world - outside from Germany.

We are convinced that such a power is not acceptable in any way even if there 
has
not been such a case (at least not officially). This project does not represent
an isolation from the "American" Internet, however, it is supposed to limit the
influence and control of the U.S.A substantially. Further a weight distribution
on the ORSN network would have positive effects (speed) for everyone in the 
Internet.

Right now the ORSN root servers are attainable in the German Internet area and
therefore localized closer to the common Internet user in Germany and Europe 
than
a DNS inquiry to the U.S.A or Japan etc.

http://european.de.orsn.net/about.php

Network
http://european.de.orsn.net/network.php
Operators
http://european.de.orsn.net/members.php

--

Frank


-Deepak wrote:

Is this operational or dross?

Basically it sounds like the U.S. Gov't (NTIA)/U.S. Dept of Commerce
will take back control of the root name servers from ICANN at some
point. I suppose they might just contract operation of them to ICANN,
but its unclear to me.

I'm hesitant to post because if this were a huge deal I would have
expected someone to beat me to the punch. But then again, its a holiday
weekend in the U.S.

Deepak




Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking

[Frank Coluccio]

I commented independently concerning the same issue just a little while ago, at:http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21457409re:  "The question may now become if consumer can order Vonage, 8x8, ... VoIP service, riding the cable Internet service."---begin snip: Agreed, that is a major question. There is nothing that binds the MSOs
to continue carrying the parasitic services you cited except for good
will, and throughout the country the measure of that good will varies
by region, state and down to the individual locale and household. If
recent history is any guide, the incumbents will do whatever they can
get away with and still profit from within the shortest possible
horizon. It would be difficult for the MSOs to cut the Vonages off at
the knees at this time, but will become easier if and/or when the
Telcos, too, find themselves no longer required to fill the role of
common carriers. Then both the MSOs and the ILECs can give the
parasites the boot, and customers will have nowhere else to go that
permits them. To do so before that time, however, could potentially be
a PR nightmare for the MSOs, IMO, and this could outweigh any potential
interim financial gains, so I think that they will wait for the ILECs
to catch up with them so they could share some of the negative light.
---end snipFrank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile On Tue Jun 28 20:06 , "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)"  sent:

Jeff Pulver makes a good point in a Forbes article
when he says "I believe it's a matter of when, not
if" providers start blocking VoIP traffic from
competitors across their own infrastructure, especially
on the heels of the Brand X SCOTUS ruling.

"If I'm a service provider offering my own voice
over broadband offering, and I've got the ability
to block my competition, why not?"

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/06/28/voip-cable-blocked-cx_de_0628voip.html

- ferg

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

Onsite Generation: A Reminder [was: Battery Maint in LEC equipment]

[Frank Coluccio]

There's been much said here and over in the Cybertelecom list recently about
battery provisions by telcos and cable operators, but relatively little has been
mentioned about onsite generation. I sometimes point my staff and clients to the
messages that were posted here in NANOG, including those of my own, immediately
following the attacks of September 11th and lasting into the next month or two.
Many here will recall that at that time many hubs and enterprises alike in the
downtown area of Manhattan, including the area's Internet exchanges and colos,
received a first-hand lesson on the need to maintain preparedness with
functioning generators, including fuel and spare parts. Not to mention the need
to modify air intakes and exhausts for a new form of threat: Airborne Debris.

Frank 

On Tue Jun  7 15:34 , Jerry Pasker  sent:

>
>Even though it is fed with N+1 UPS power, Qwest put N+1 rectifiers & 
>batteries for their fiber cabinet they installed for me a few years 
>ago.  At the time, batteries were required no matter what, and they 
>say they will replace them every 5 years.  A little-town independent 
>telco however, refused to even install a data center fiber shelf 
>unless I provided them with DC power.  It just seems to depend on the 
>whim of the telco.
>
>As prices fall, so does level of service.  NANOGers all know 
>providing uninterruptible power in the current evolving networks is 
>hard as the communications infrastructure continues to decentralize. 
>Providing non stop power for long term power failures with generators 
>scattered all over the place is insanely hard.  Keeping them running 
>during a widespread 'event' is even harder.  Everyone wants (expects) 
>"always on" dial tone.  And everyone wants cheap calling and cheep 
>bandwidth.  Batteries, generators, and their maintenance/operation 
>are expensive.  A resilient built network is much more expensive than 
>a non resilient one.  Eventually the public will start to realize 
>this, and start to demand laws to maintain certain minimum levels of 
>service.  It won't happen until some large disaster, or touching news 
>story about some preventable tragedy brings it in front of the 
>public.  People will have to die for this trend to change.
>
>The non-reliable VOIP as a lifeline, even if it's not intended as 
>one, is the tip of this iceberg.
>
>(by the way, like many other forms of regulation, the same goes for 
>internet regulation if some shady network somewhere ever turns 
>out to be the root cause of some incident where a number of deaths 
>occur, regulation will soon follow)
>
>Aside from human error, right now the weakest link in the net is the 
>grid, and that is a link that isn't apparently getting any stronger.

Re: Battery Maint in LEC equipment

[Frank Coluccio]

>>wasn't refering to their POPs. I was refering to the customer location.

For about a year I've been in discussions with a private cable operator (PCO) 
who
has been knocking himself out trying to optimize an approach that would enable
him to provide generator backups in apartment buildings. He wants to match the
incumbent's triple play offerings, and in particular, he saw the need to provide
uninterrupted voice service during commercial power outages not only as an
amenity that was needed to compete with the telco, but in order to qualify for
lifeline service status, as well. The net effect of seeing what is happening in
the FTTP space has given him license now to begin considering options based on
the use of batteries, as well. Lifeline qualification and delivering non-stop
service availability are two separate, yet related, areas of consideration from 
a
regulatory persepective.  I suppose its left to interpretation, but I'm 
wondering
if the ILECs, by their use of a battery-replacement policy may be breaking the
models of both.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-857-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sat Jun  4 23:56 , Sean Donelan  sent:

>
>On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, W.D.McKinney wrote:
>> >If you wanted to pay for it, some of the CLECs would add batteries.  But
>> >it wasn't part of the base package.
>>
>> All the AT&T pops usually have nice battery and gen sets. That's what I like.
>
>I wasn't refering to their POPs.  I was refering to the customer location.
>
>I've been wondering when the building codes will be updated.  Currently
>the building codes require backup generators for elevators in high-rise
>buildings, but not for the telecommunications room in high-rise building
>(other than the fire alarm).  Instead of pulling individual copper pairs
>from a POP to the high-rise building, a CLEC may install a fiber mux in
>the basement and break-down individual circuits locally to copper.  When
>the building looses power, so does the fiber mux.
>
>Of course, adding batteries to the fiber mux doesn't solve the problem of
>PBXs or even modern pay telephones in office buildings not working when
>power fails.
>
>Who replaces the battery in your cell phone when it expires?  How about
>the battery in your cordless phone?  Or the battery in your smoke alarm?
>
>If you don't want to do it yourself, for a fee you can hire someone else
>to do it for you.  But then people would complain about the fee, and how
>they could do it themselves for less.

Re: Battery Maint in LEC equipment

[Frank Coluccio]

See UTOPIA's Standby Power RFB :

Invitation to submit sealed bids for stationary and transportable generators
RFB 2005GEN-004 June 2, 2005
http://www.utopianet.org/contracts/RFPs/pdfs/RFB_2005GEN-004.pdf

---

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-857-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sat Jun  4 23:02 , Sean Donelan  sent:

>
>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, David Lesher wrote:
>> Have any NANOG'ers [NANOGites? NANOGees?] run into this? Again, this
>> is LEC owned, LEC maintained, equipmentDo you provide generator
>> power for such in your space?
>
>Generally, the ILECs were the only ones that did this.  I've had multiple
>CLECs (Brooks, MFS, WilTel, etc) install fibermux cabinets, none of them
>provided any backup batteries by default.  They used local building power,
>and we had to make sure they were connected to our backup generator.
>
>If you wanted to pay for it, some of the CLECs would add batteries.  But
>it wasn't part of the base package.

Re: 'Call Before You Dig' Article

[Frank Coluccio]

Thanks to Curtis, first. And Roy echoed my next question. This is an interesting
example of how pending and future regulatory decisions that are based on
assumptions of an earlier time are now intersecting with VoIP providers' 
existing
capabilities and future "responsibilities." 


Frank 

-

On Sat May 14 18:10 , Roy  sent:

>
>Curtis Doty wrote:
>
>>
>> This issue went national in March 2005 with the addition of a new N11 
>> number for "One Call" notification. 
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257293A1.pdf
>>
>> The new abbreviated number will be 811 and it looks like carriers are 
>> required to implement by April 2007--since it's been in the Federal 
>> Register for about a month now. 
>> http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a050413c.html
>>
>> ../C
>>
>But is it applicable to VOIP carriers?
>
>Roy Engehausen

Re: 'Call Before You Dig' Article: [Was Re: Cogent norther california fiber cut -- details?]

[Frank Coluccio]

The URL that should have been shown in the preceding message:

"Call Before You Dig" by Glenn Fox

http://www.pobonline.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/Article/0,9169,100727,00.html

Sorry about that.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-857-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

--

On Sat May 14 14:31 , Frank Coluccio  sent:

>
>Pete, All,
>
>This may be slightly OT, but I thought it would be of interest to many here, 
>just
>the same:
>
>http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx\?msgid=21324247
>
>Comments concerning live outage reporting from Sean Donelan and others who've
>stayed on top of outage and D/R matters would be appreciated, either on list or
>off. TIA.
>
>Frank A. Coluccio
>DTI Consulting Inc.
>212-857-8150 Office
>347-526-6788 Mobile
>
>On Sat May 14  7:33 , Pete Templin  sent:
>
>>
>>John van Oppen wrote:
>>> Anyone know anything about the Fiber cut that took Cogent's Seattle POP
>>> out of commission at about 6 PM (PST) today?   
>>
>>AboveNet reported a fiber cut at 1852PDT which they believe to be in the 
>>Sacramento area.  Oddly enough, we saw a regular stream of ~5000 BGP 
>>update messages received every five minutes from 2230CDT to 0330CDT; 
>>I've asked if this was related to the fiber cut but haven't gotten a reply.
>>
>>pt
>
>

"Call Before You Dig" Article: [Was Re: Cogent norther california fiber cut -- details?]

[Frank Coluccio]

Pete, All,

This may be slightly OT, but I thought it would be of interest to many here, 
just
the same:

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21324247

Comments concerning live outage reporting from Sean Donelan and others who've
stayed on top of outage and D/R matters would be appreciated, either on list or
off. TIA.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-857-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Sat May 14  7:33 , Pete Templin  sent:

>
>John van Oppen wrote:
>> Anyone know anything about the Fiber cut that took Cogent's Seattle POP
>> out of commission at about 6 PM (PST) today?   
>
>AboveNet reported a fiber cut at 1852PDT which they believe to be in the 
>Sacramento area.  Oddly enough, we saw a regular stream of ~5000 BGP 
>update messages received every five minutes from 2230CDT to 0330CDT; 
>I've asked if this was related to the fiber cut but haven't gotten a reply.
>
>pt

Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?

[Frank Coluccio]

Valdis Kletnieks wrote:

>there's going to be *plenty* of room for small 
>flexible operators in niche markets, at both 
>ends of the pipe.

Agreed. Adding some substance to those words, see:

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21312808

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting

-

On Fri May 13  9:03 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:23:14 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> Their impact can't be measured because it spread out into niche
>> markets. Like blogs and wikis and all those photo sites.
>> And my company's network with 1,000 customers and PoPs in
>> 20 countries all doing 100% ASP traffic. ASPs businesses are
>> thriving. However, the crystal ball gazers who hyped them
>> back in the late 90's just got it all wrong because they
>> thought ASPs would displace MS-Office desktops and SAP 
>> installations.
>
>Exactly what *I* predicted - there's going to be *plenty* of room for
>small flexible operators in niche markets, at both ends of the pipe.
>
>In fact, there's almost certainly money to be made by leveraging the fact that
>Comcast wants to do 4M/384K/$25 - the number of companies making money from
>finding innovative ways to sell you electricity is *far* outweighed by the
>number of companies finding new ways to make money based on the fact that
>somebody *else* is selling you electricity.
>
>The only people who need to worry are the ones whos business model is "We made
>money selling 'just pipes' in that market 5 years ago, and we're doing it now,
>so it will still be OK 5-10 years from now". 98% of *those* companies are in
>for a rude awakening. ;)
>

Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?

[Frank Coluccio]

Alexei Roudnev wrote:

>> What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters into
>> use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of
>Because multicast standards was written by academic idiots. -:) Very
>difficult to use and full of unused features.
>
>(Do not believe? Read RSVP protocol - not exactly multicast but not far away
>from it).
>
>And because multicast protocols (unfortunately) are not easy to implement.
>It excuse this standards and their authors.
>
>I can predict one more 'skype' like company, with really robust protocol,
>catching multicast market. Something like 'peer to peer multicast' -:).

Don't be too quick to assess the usage and value of multicast in last mile 
access
networks, where it has found far greater success than over the Internet proper
across the WAN. IP- and ATM- based multicast has worked very well for the past
five years in telco VDSL (check out Next Level's implementations during the late
nineties), and now in all manner of xDSL implementations, as well as a number of
cable operator service applications in the digital region of their spectrum, for
program video delivery to homes. Check it out. 

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/neso/dsso/global/madsl_wp.htm

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.

On Fri May 13  2:29 , "Alexei Roudnev"  sent:

>
>>
>>
>> So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless.
>> Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
>>
>> What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters into
>> use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of
>Because multicast standards was written by academic idiots. -:) Very
>difficult to use and full of unused features.
>
>(Do not believe? Read RSVP protocol - not exactly multicast but not far away
>from it).
>
>And because multicast protocols (unfortunately) are not easy to implement.
>It excuse this standards and their authors.
>
>I can predict one more 'skype' like company, with really robust protocol,
>catching multicast market. Something like 'peer to peer multicast' -:).
>
>
>
>
>> broadband video, etc., is just going to have to break wide open soon.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   Ross Hosman
>>   
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fred Heutte [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>   @yahoo.com>  cc:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>   Sent by: Subject: Re: what will all
>you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?
>>   owner-nanog
>>
>>
>>   05/12/2005 02:16
>>   PM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not pointing any fingers but many of you think these
>> small ISP's are just going to die off instead of
>> adapt. Wireless is becoming a better and more reliable
>> technology that in the future will be able to provide
>> faster service then FTTH. I know of atleast one small
>> ISP in Michigan that went from dial-up to deploying
>> wireless. With WiMAX coming out I think you will see a
>> number of smaller ISPs switching to it as a service.
>> It is also much cheaper to deploy a wireless network.
>>
>> Me personally, I think wireless is the future for
>> residential internet/tv/phone.
>>
>> Ross Hosman
>> Charter Communcations
>>
>> --- Steve Sobol [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Fred Heutte wrote:
>> > > (1) There will be a market for independent ISPs as
>> > long CLECs
>> >
>> > I think a more appropriate term would be ALEC
>> >
>> > (anti-competitive local exchange carrier)
>> >
>> > ...That having been said, the problem with the small
>> > guys providing access is
>> > they can't generally achieve the economies of scale
>> > that allow them to compete
>> > with the big guys.
>> >
>> > I'm on a Charter cablemodem, 3mbps down x 256kbps
>> > up, $39.95/month. Verizon is
>> > building out FTTH in this area and they're going to
>> > be offering 5x2 for $39.95
>> > or 10x5 for $49.95, IIRC. Those are all residential
>> > prices, but Charter's
>> > actually pretty competitive on business rates too.
>> >
>> > And yes, there are people who value service over
>> > price, but the price
>> > differential is only going to get worse.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/
>> > - 888.480.4NET (4638)
>> > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge /
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
>> >
>> > "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
>> >  --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: competitive network overbuilds

[Frank Coluccio]

David Barak noted:

>>It should be noted that the same statement applies to
DSL, FTTH, or RFC-1419 service as well: anyone who
wants to CAN do an overbuild, and in fact that would
probably be the best for customers in the long-run.

A very timely comment, and IMO you are correct. Especially with respect to "that
would probably be the best for customers in the long-run." ;)

But there obviously are limits. I have at times been involved with, and seen the
work of others who have attempted to come up with a number that defines just how
many horizontal service providers - at the various layers of the stack -- with
glass-wireless at 1, gigabit Ethernet at 2, and Internet at 3 -- a given service
territory could support. Analysis must take into account the needs of the
citizens being served; the SPs' viability and financial sustainability; and the
sheer logistics of the situation, given the limitations of time, space and the
need for elegant hand offs to customers through the use of a minimal set of
channel interfaces and speeds.

Given an area where poles and underground conduits are already occupied with at
least two wireline heavyweights, namely the duopoly players who are happily
dancing to the tune of "inter-modal" competition that was given a blessing by 
the
FCC, plus the electric company on the ground, and three-to-four wireless
providers who already are renting space on existing tower structures for WiMAX,
how may more trenches, poles and towers can the support structures and rights of
way in many populated areas support?

Consider a simple example, albeit, one that is more easily stated than
accomplished, granted:

A fiber condominium builder receives permission and a franchise to overbuild
glass onto an entire town's existing copper footprint, resulting in a shared
Layer 1 resource that allows upper layer Service Providers to rent fiber from
them in the forms of feeder, distribution and drop cables right up to each end
point.

Go!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-

On Wed May 11 17:08 , David Barak  sent:

>
>
>--- "Sam Hayes Merritt, III" [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> You are always free to obtain a franchise and run
>> your own coax. Just 
>> because the incumbent cable company does not allow
>> every tom dick and 
>> harry ISP to use their copper doesn't mean you can't
>> provide the same 
>> service.
>
>It should be noted that the same statement applies to
>DSL, FTTH, or RFC-1419 service as well: anyone who
>wants to CAN do an overbuild, and in fact that would
>probably be the best for customers in the long-run.
>
>
>
>David Barak
>Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise: 
>http://www.listentothefranchise.com
>
>
>   
>__ 
>Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 

NPR program: "The Internet as a public utility"

[Frank Coluccio]

NPR program: "The Internet as a public utility"

Talking heads (audio only)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4618769

A worthy listen, imo, focused primarily on municipal wireless nets. With thanks
to Tom Hertz of Fiber utilities of Iowa who posted to the Cook Report discussion
list.

---

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
New York

Good Aricle on Restoration of 140 West Street

[Frank Coluccio]

http://lw.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?
Section=Articles&Subsection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=152426

Re: Re: Network inventory and configuration tracking tools

[Frank Coluccio]

> 
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
> 
> > How about an operations oriented question.  What is the current
> > preferences amoung network operators for network inventory and
> > configuration management tools? Not so much status monitoring (up,
> > down) but other stuff network operator wants to know like circuit
> > IDs (how many IDs can a circuit have?), network contacts, design layout
> > reports (layer 1/2/3), what's supposed to be connected to that port?
> > The stuff you can't get out of the box itself.
> >
> > Most ISPs seem to end up with a combination of homegrown systems,
> > opensource, and commercial products.  The commercial "integrated"
> > systems have lots of stuff, and according to the vendors can do
> > anything including splice fiber.
> 
> We ended up in large part developing our own tools in-house.
> 
> One is an SQL database to store and link network elements (routers,
> interfaces/ports, circuits, IP addresses, contacts, etc) with hooks into
> other internal databases and other outward-facing applications, such as
> our rwhois server.
> 
> Another is a tool that polls our network devices once every few hours and
> backs up their configuration into an RCS filestore so we have journaling
> capabilities.
> 
> We do use some commercial tools, but those are mainly for customer
> presentation (VitalSuite) and up/down reporting and event correlation
> (Netcool).
> 
> jms
> 

jms, your message highlights the extent to which various systems with different 
missions in life come to interact with one another - 0R NOT. To wit, event 
correlation, network performance, line and port configs & inventory, etc. What 
I've not seen here spoken about much (if at all) has been the link between 
billing systems and all of the above. I recently undertook to reconcile billing 
discrepancies for a business unit in a large corporate account (a very large intl 
bank with 132 pops around the globe), and I found that there was no linkage 
between their *multiple,* internal bill-back systems (which naturally factored in 
markups to leased line costs that are paid by IT) and the circuit inventory 
systems. This has to be an issue with BBPs and ISPs, too, I'd imagine, if 
accurate and up to date billing is an interest. The manual processes that I had 
to endure in tallying the live circuit charges, and separating those charges from 
those being assessed for the "dead wood pile" were quite unbelievable in this day 
and age.

Re: Re: MAE ATM

[Frank Coluccio]

"Anyone remember the Magnum's ...?"

Yep. How about the FiberCom FDDI box, the one that went manufacturer discontinued 
on the day that we commissioned CCNY's 12 building campus network in Harlem, New 
York?



> 
> Anyone remember the Magnum's or MetroLans?
> 
> :-)
> 
> Jon Hardy where aee youuu!
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "David Diaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mark Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:24 PM
> Subject: Re: MAE ATM
> 
> 
> > 
> > I almost forgot about those netedge boxes, seems the one we had in DC 
> > was about as reliable as a microwave with tin foil in it.  I cant 
> > remember how many times it or a card had been replaced.
> > 
> > Is anyone out there still using them?  I do have fond memories of 
> > fddi, about the only truly stable card on a grf if there was such a 
> > thing.
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > At 22:04 -0700 7/30/02, Mark Kent wrote:
> > >>>  How did people interconnect before may 1998, fddi?
> > >
> > >fddi, some remote with netedge boxes at either end of an atm link.
> > >There were some 10baseT connections too, there was at least one
> > >low end Catalyst switch dedicated to plain ethernet.
> > >
> > >Here is a big hint:
> > >
> > >http://www.nanog.org/2.95.NANOG.notes/mae-west.html
> > >
> > >-mark
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Re: Re: PASSIVE [D]WDM... Like, Cisco 15216.

[Frank Coluccio]

It would be nice if Transmode spent a little more attention to the detail in 
their data sheet and less on their art work. I can't discern what their CWDM 
spacings are either. If you return to the site you'll note that the 1.25 and 2.5 
Gxx numbers you cited were actually *bit rates*, not frequency separations on a 
grid. 

The ways in which grids are defined for DWDM and CWDM differ, with DWDM grids 
typically defined on the basis of frequency spacings. E.g., spacings between the 
center frequencies of lambdas at 200GHz, 100GHz and 50GHz proposed for the ITU 
grids. The proposed CWDM Grids, on the other hand, will use *wavelength* spacings 
(effectively the same thing after you do the arithmetic, it's just noted 
differently).

See the following TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association) paper at the url 
below.  E.g., CWDM grid spacings may be at 20 nanometers (20 nm), whereas a DWDM 
spacing might be 100 GHz.

http://ftp.tiaonline.org/fo-2/fo27/Public/2002-01-Kauai/FO27-2002-01-TD12.doc

I don't know how much this helps in the search for a mix and match wavelength 
conversion assembly, but it at least lays out all known and proposed grid formats 
so that we have a more factually-based starting point.

FAC

> 
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > I'm currently using the 15454 to wavelength convert OC48 signals, but have
> > not to date seen a black-box wavelength convertor - I would also be interested
> > to know if such a beast exists. I think if you want to do this, you're stuck
> > with the Metro 1500 (or equivalent from someone else), which becomes very
> > expensive quickly.
> 
> Transmode  has both 1.25Ghz and 2.5Ghz units
> with where you pretty much can pick and choose your optics from 850nm MM,
> 1310, 1510, 1530, 1550 and 1570nm when you order. This is not a complete
> ITU grid from what I can find (I don't know exactly what ITU grid is but I
> found some specs) but rather for CWDM use.
> 
> There should be quite a few manufacturers making units like these, I know 
> the MRV people does it as well (or some company within MRV).
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

Re: Williams Opinions?

[Frank Coluccio]

> Does anyone have any current opinions on Williams IP service and any
> expected changes with the  Chapter 11?
> 
> Shane

Williams Communications Group Inc. (The "Holding Company") has filed, but this, 
*ostensibly*, should not affect the ongoing operations of their operating 
subsidiary, Williams Communications, LLC. 

>From the Reuters news release on the subject:
--

Williams Communications Files for Chapter 11 
TULSA, Okla. (Reuters) - Williams Communications Group Inc. (OTC BB:WCGR.OB - 
news) said on Monday it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in a bid 
to restructure and cut its debt by about $6 billion. 

The company said it filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court 
for the Southern District of New York and expects to file a reorganization plan 
in the ``near future.'' 

Its operating subsidiary, Williams Communications, LLC, is not expected to be 
involved in the Chapter 11 reorganization process, the statement said. 

The company's Chapter 11 filing comes as the battered telecommunications sector 
continues to takes a hammering from heavy competition, a glut of fiber-optic 
networks and bankruptcy filings by other competitors.
--

Caveat emptor, 

FAC.

Re: RE: long distance gigabit ethernet

[Frank Coluccio]

> 
> Forget it [Gbe] with today's technology. All long haul 
> systems use SONET framing. But with the 10Gbe standard 
> WAN PHY you can directly connect into a SONET
> transponder and your ethernet will be carried transparently.



Agreed, for the most part, especially when one is solely dependent on the 
incumbent carriers. I should point out, however, that some commercial enterprises 
are leasing their own lambdas from dark fiber providers who are running native 
GbE  on their regional routes, both linear and ring-based, and those nets are 
becoming rather expansive. One such network that I am intimately familiar with 
now encompasses six northeastern states, and counting, adding segment after 
segment. Jitter on the larger ring circumferences? Yes, you betcha. Compensated 
for by either 3R regen or Layer 2 switching techniques or some other opaque-
inducing means. 

When such routes are actually available and justifiable, the business problem 
then centers on risk assessment. I.e., will those fiber carriers continue to be 
viable for the foreseeable future? And so it goes...

FAC

> 
> -
> Bill St. Arnaud
> Senior Director Network Projects
> CANARIE Inc
> www.canarie.ca/~bstarn
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Greg Pendergrass
> > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:36 AM
> > To: 'Nanog@Merit. Edu'
> > Subject: long distance gigabit ethernet
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm looking at long-haul gigabit ethernet as a possible solution versus
> > traditional SONET and I'm a little bit wary as promises made on web pages
> > and white papers aren't *always* completely accurate.  I'd
> > appreciate it if
> > you all would share your experiences with it. By long-haul I mean in the
> > hundreds or thousands of miles. I need to know:
> >
> > a. Does it work properly?
> >
> > b. Who offers it in the continental US?
> >
> > Please contact me off-list. Any information is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Greg Pendergrass
> >
> >
> 
>