Re: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?

[Richard Patterson]

We've deployed the MX480s as PEs in multiple countries, and have been 
pretty damn happy with them for the most part.
Any issues we've seen (largely around interface counters/statistics etc) 
can be chalked up to an older JunOS version that we're running.


The CLI is shiny, and easy to use, and next to stablity, this is the 
biggest factor when ranking a platform for me.


-Richard


On 26/06/2011 5:03 p.m., Howard Hart wrote:

We have a couple installed as our edge routers.

Pluses -  solid as a rock, easy to administer, and will take some extremely 
high packet rates for relatively low cost (important for us since we use them 
for VoIP traffic). If you're approaching the capacity of a 1GB uplink, I highly 
recommend these as your first step to 10 GB.

Minuses - careful on your MX80 version. The MX80-48T includes a built in 48 
port 1 GigE switch, but we've had compatibility issues with it and other 
vendors switches. The modular version that replaces the MX80-48T costs quite a 
bit more, but it does give you a lot more connection and compatibility options.

Howard Hart

On Jun 25, 2011, at 9:37 PM, "Ryan 
Finnesey"  wrote:


I would love to know the same I am looking at the MX line as well for a
new network build-out

Cheers
Ryan


-Original Message-
From: Chris [mailto:behrnetwo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:29 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?

Hello,

I've been doing some research into using the MX line of Juniper routers
and was interested in hearing people's experiences (the good, bad, and
ugly). What do you like about them? What do you dislike?
Where are you putting them in your network? Where are you not putting
them? Why? What other platforms would you consider and why? I hope to
hear some candid responses, but feel free to respond privately if you
need to.

Thanks!

Re: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?

[Howard Hart]

We have a couple installed as our edge routers.

Pluses -  solid as a rock, easy to administer, and will take some extremely 
high packet rates for relatively low cost (important for us since we use them 
for VoIP traffic). If you're approaching the capacity of a 1GB uplink, I highly 
recommend these as your first step to 10 GB.

Minuses - careful on your MX80 version. The MX80-48T includes a built in 48 
port 1 GigE switch, but we've had compatibility issues with it and other 
vendors switches. The modular version that replaces the MX80-48T costs quite a 
bit more, but it does give you a lot more connection and compatibility options.

Howard Hart

On Jun 25, 2011, at 9:37 PM, "Ryan Finnesey" 
 wrote:

> I would love to know the same I am looking at the MX line as well for a
> new network build-out 
> 
> Cheers
> Ryan
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris [mailto:behrnetwo...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:29 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I've been doing some research into using the MX line of Juniper routers
> and was interested in hearing people's experiences (the good, bad, and
> ugly). What do you like about them? What do you dislike?
> Where are you putting them in your network? Where are you not putting
> them? Why? What other platforms would you consider and why? I hope to
> hear some candid responses, but feel free to respond privately if you
> need to.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Jeff Wheeler]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Alex Rubenstein  wrote:
> At least here in JCPL territory (northern NJ), closed transition is frowned 
> upon. Too much risk, they think. They are correct, really, but the risk is 
> mostly yours. If you lock to the utility out-of-phase, you will surely lose 
> and they will surely win. The fault you create that they will see will 
> probably not hurt them. Unless it is extraordinarily large and you are very 
> close to the nearest substation.

Utilities concern themselves with not only their gear and your gear,
but also your neighbor's gear.  I would not like to be next-door to a
large genset that is connected to the grid out-of-phase.  My equipment
would be affected by such an event.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler 
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts

RE: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?

[Ryan Finnesey]

I would love to know the same I am looking at the MX line as well for a
new network build-out 

Cheers
Ryan


-Original Message-
From: Chris [mailto:behrnetwo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:29 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: What do you think about the Juniper MX line?

Hello,

I've been doing some research into using the MX line of Juniper routers
and was interested in hearing people's experiences (the good, bad, and
ugly). What do you like about them? What do you dislike?
Where are you putting them in your network? Where are you not putting
them? Why? What other platforms would you consider and why? I hope to
hear some candid responses, but feel free to respond privately if you
need to.

Thanks!

RE: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Alex Rubenstein]

> It ismy understanding also that most commercial grade gensets have
> built into the ATS logic that when utility power comesback online, that
> the transfer back to utility power is coordinated with the ATS driving
> the generator until both frequency and phases are within a user
> specified range?


Well, that depends.

If you have a open-transition ATS, where there is a 'neutral' (read: not 
connected to any source) position, it doesn't matter (much). Well, it matters a 
little. There is really two types of open transition.

Something called "open transition" will provide a transfer by going 
closed-open-closed (in both directions). The issue is the open portion of that 
transfer can be very short; sometimes only a few cycles at 60 hz. If you have 
an electric motor connected as load (fan, compressor, whatever), if the sources 
are out of phase, it can be an interesting event for said motor. Typically, a 
open transition switch will wait until the phasing is 'close enough' (usually 
programmable by way of degrees.). We have an old russ electric ats somewhere 
that is happy at about 15 degrees +/-.

There is also a type, "delayed transition", which is closed-open-wait-closed. 
Wait is typically programmable, it may be 500 msec, it might be a minute. It's 
up to the user. This is regarded as the safest type of switch (imho) because 
you do not run the risk of any of the above mentioned badness. However, in a 
datacenter scenario, you do have a battery hit (ranging from tens or hundreds 
of millisecond to many seconds depending on what you want). How good is your 
UPS and battery plant? Will your fans inertia keep air moving for a little 
while? All things to consider.

If you have a closed-transition switch, typically the retransfer from emergency 
to normal is closed-closed, meaning that emergency gen, normal utility, and 
load are all connected together for a short while. Typically in the tens or 
hundreds of msecs. Anything longer than that kinda falls into the cogeneration 
category. That is another discussion.

At least here in JCPL territory (northern NJ), closed transition is frowned 
upon. Too much risk, they think. They are correct, really, but the risk is 
mostly yours. If you lock to the utility out-of-phase, you will surely lose and 
they will surely win. The fault you create that they will see will probably not 
hurt them. Unless it is extraordinarily large and you are very close to the 
nearest substation. You must really trust your utility and your transfer gear 
and your generators to do this. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of this, but 
that is just religion.

Personally, I like delayed transition, and that is what we do on anything 
recent. Short, usually, like 3 or 5 seconds. If anyone wants a demonstration, 
let me know. Long enough for motor controls to say "oh, hey, we lost power so 
let's do a nice soft restart of motors" and compressor controls can do delayed 
restarts as well. Works quite well, in practice.

Much is overlooked in this discussion, as to things people should do about ATS 
and UPS programming.. but it is outside of the scope of NANOG unfortunately. 
Perhaps we need a NADCOG or something. 

What does this have to do with the whole 60 hz discussion and clocks? Not much. 
Other than I will have to rely on the cell phone more and the microwave less 
for time.

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Michael DeMan]

On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Andrew D Kirch  wrote:

> On 6/25/2011 7:43 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
>> Take a guess what the datacenter our equipment is currently hosted in uses.  
>> Yet another reason to be glad of a datacenter move that's coming up.
>> 
> Why can't we just all use DC and be happy?
> 

Because often short term pain and long term gain frequently (pardon the pun) 
better ideas do not make it through the free market process?

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Michael DeMan]

It ismy understanding also that most commercial grade gensets have built into 
the ATS logic that when utility power comesback online, that the transfer back 
to utility power is coordinated with the ATS driving the generator until both 
frequency and phases are within a user specified range?

- mike

On Jun 25, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Leo Bicknell  wrote:

> In a message written on Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:29:14PM -0400, Jay Ashworth 
> wrote:
>> I believe the answer to that question is contained here:
>> 
>>  http://yarchive.net/car/rv/generator_synchronization.html [1]
> 
> I wouldn't use a colo that had to sync their generator to the grid.
> That is a bad design.
> 
> Critical load should be on a battery or flywheel system.  When the
> utility is bad (including out) the load should be on the battery or
> flywheel for 5-15 seconds before the generators start.  The generators
> need to sync to each other.
> 
> Essential load (think lighting, AC units) get dropped completely for
> 30-60 seconds until the generators are stable, and then that load gets
> hooked back in.
> 
> I have never seen a generator that syncs to the utility for live, no
> break transfer.  I'm sure such a thing exists, but that sounds crazy
> dangerous to me.  Generators sync to each other, not the utility.
> 
> -- 
>   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Re: AS and advertisen questions

[Randy Bush]

> Can we use same AS to advertise different networks in different location?
> 
> We would like to use Seattle as production network and New York as testing
> 
> eg:
> Seattle: network 66.49.130.0/24
> 
> New York: network 67.55.129.0/24 and ipv6 network.

you have not made clear whether ny and sea are connected internally.  if
not, see joel's caveat.

some folk with whom you may want to peer may demand that you announce
the same nlri to them at all peering points.

randy

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Seth Mattinen" 

> On 6/25/2011 15:12, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > I have never seen a generator that syncs to the utility for live, no
> > break transfer. I'm sure such a thing exists, but that sounds crazy
> > dangerous to me. Generators sync to each other, not the utility.
> 
> Most of these come in open, delayed, or closed transition models:
> http://www.gedigitalenergy.com/powerquality/ATSHome.htm
> 
> For open and closed transitions you'll most certainly want to sync to
> utility to transition between the two. For the delayed transition model
> it'll stop at the intermediate "open" point for a configurable amount of
> time during which the load is disconnected from everything (i.e. let all
> the motors spin down first).

And more to the point, if you're installing 2-5MW of generation capacity,
it's not all that uncommon to make it a cogen plant, at which point yeah,
you're gonna run in sync.

Leo: note that your body text was an *attachment* for some reason; new mailer?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

Re: AS and advertisen questions

[David Swafford]

Yep, we do it that way.

We basically treat each of our datacenter's as their own entity, using
separate space for each, but all with the same AS #.  What Joel
mentioned is going to be the major catch, in that for each of the two
disconnected AS's to accept the opposite sites routes, you'd need to
relax BGP's loop prevention check (which looks for it's own AS #
within the AS Path of incoming routes).

If your on Cisco gear, you'd need to add an additional command under
the BGP neighbor configuration that says "allowas-in".  Here's a breif
doc from Cisco on configuring this
http://www.cisco.com/image/gif/paws/112236/allowas-in-bgp-config-example.pdf

David.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Joel Jaeggli  wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Deric Kwok wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Can we use same AS to advertise different networks in different location?
>>
>> We would like to use Seattle as production network and New York as testing
>>
>> eg:
>> Seattle: network 66.49.130.0/24
>>
>> New York: network 67.55.129.0/24 and ipv6 network.
>>
>> Thank you
>
> Assuming you want the two instances to be able talk to each other you just 
> have to relax loop detection so that you will accept prefixes from your AS...
>

Re: AS and advertisen questions

[Joel Jaeggli]

On Jun 25, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Deric Kwok wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Can we use same AS to advertise different networks in different location?
> 
> We would like to use Seattle as production network and New York as testing
> 
> eg:
> Seattle: network 66.49.130.0/24
> 
> New York: network 67.55.129.0/24 and ipv6 network.
> 
> Thank you

Assuming you want the two instances to be able talk to each other you just have 
to relax loop detection so that you will accept prefixes from your AS...

Re: AS and advertisen questions

[Cameron Byrne]

On Jun 25, 2011 6:04 PM, "Deric Kwok"  wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Can we use same AS to advertise different networks in different location?
>
> We would like to use Seattle as production network and New York as testing
>
> eg:
> Seattle: network 66.49.130.0/24
>
> New York: network 67.55.129.0/24 and ipv6 network.
>
> Thank you
>

Yes

AS and advertisen questions

[Deric Kwok]

Hi

Can we use same AS to advertise different networks in different location?

We would like to use Seattle as production network and New York as testing

eg:
Seattle: network 66.49.130.0/24

New York: network 67.55.129.0/24 and ipv6 network.

Thank you

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/25/2011 16:43, Paul Graydon wrote:
> On 6/25/2011 12:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>> For open and closed transitions you'll most certainly want to sync to
>> utility to transition between the two. For the delayed transition model
>> it'll stop at the intermediate "open" point for a configurable amount of
>> time during which the load is disconnected from everything (i.e. let all
>> the motors spin down first).
>>
>> ~Seth
>>
> Take a guess what the datacenter our equipment is currently hosted in
> uses.  Yet another reason to be glad of a datacenter move that's coming up.
> 

Also depends on the operator, so ask to see their xfer switches and how
they're programmed if that's a concern. All of the non-residential
models in that link for three-phase have motor/load disconnect signaling
capability. If the operator is clued enough to use it then it's all
good: shut off signal to motor/compressor loads, phase sync and switch,
signal reconnect after delay. But if they're not... run away.

Even with the delayed transition models the "hold open" delay can be too
short and end up re-energizing the motors too quickly. There's always
plenty of ways to f*ck things up good.

~Seth

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Joel Jaeggli]

On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Andrew D Kirch wrote:

> On 6/25/2011 7:43 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
>> Take a guess what the datacenter our equipment is currently hosted in uses.  
>> Yet another reason to be glad of a datacenter move that's coming up.
>> 
> Why can't we just all use DC and be happy?

motors don't produce DC?

tesla vs edison?

human safe dc voltage requires comically large conductors for the sorts of 
loads we energize?

transmission loss except at very high voltages...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Andrew D Kirch]

On 6/25/2011 7:43 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Take a guess what the datacenter our equipment is currently hosted in 
uses.  Yet another reason to be glad of a datacenter move that's 
coming up.



Why can't we just all use DC and be happy?

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Paul Graydon]

On 6/25/2011 12:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 6/25/2011 15:12, Leo Bicknell wrote:

I have never seen a generator that syncs to the utility for live, no
break transfer.  I'm sure such a thing exists, but that sounds crazy
dangerous to me.  Generators sync to each other, not the utility.


Most of these come in open, delayed, or closed transition models:
http://www.gedigitalenergy.com/powerquality/ATSHome.htm

For open and closed transitions you'll most certainly want to sync to
utility to transition between the two. For the delayed transition model
it'll stop at the intermediate "open" point for a configurable amount of
time during which the load is disconnected from everything (i.e. let all
the motors spin down first).

~Seth

Take a guess what the datacenter our equipment is currently hosted in 
uses.  Yet another reason to be glad of a datacenter move that's coming up.

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Ingo Flaschberger]

Generators all stay in sync.  Generator owners have expensive devices
that sync the phase before the generator is connected to the grid.  Once
a generator is connected to the gird, it will stay in sync - in fact
that is why they have the expensive devices to make sure that they are
in sync before they connect them, as if they are not, it will instantly
jump to being in sync, which may destroy the generator.


As a matter of fact, it may destroy the generator, the housing, the building,
the damn, and more. An out-of-sync generator becomes a motor until it is
in sync. lt can be a graphic and dramatic event.


Big generator are synchron maschines, as they can generate also reactive 
power. If a out of sync synchron maschine is connected to the grid, theres 
a big "kawumm" and then the maschine is in sync or dead.
Only the angle between the rotor and the magentic field make the 
difference between generator and motor.
A synchron motor can not self-start and only run at fixed grid freuency / 
rpm's. A overloaded motor suddenly stops.


Smaller generators are asynchron maschines, that can run faster or slower 
than network frequency - ie run as generator or motor - but they always 
consume reactive power.

They can self-start.

Synchronising maschines to a grid is not a big problem, the bigger problem 
is to syncronise 2 disconnected grids.
Some years ago in europe a grid operator violated the n+1 redundancy rule 
as he needed to switch of a big power line over the river "Ems" - to 
allow a big ship to leave the shipyard.
The result was a netsplit trough whole europe - a lot of "big" 
line-breakers flipped and switched of north-west and south-east power 
lines. 
The whole european grid was split into 3 parts, running at higher and 
lowet frequencies.


Details:
http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/BNetzA/Areas/ElectricityGas/Special%20Topics/Blackout2005/BerichtEnglischeVersionId9347pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Kind regards,
Ingo Flaschberger

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/25/2011 15:12, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> I have never seen a generator that syncs to the utility for live, no
> break transfer.  I'm sure such a thing exists, but that sounds crazy
> dangerous to me.  Generators sync to each other, not the utility.
> 

Most of these come in open, delayed, or closed transition models:
http://www.gedigitalenergy.com/powerquality/ATSHome.htm

For open and closed transitions you'll most certainly want to sync to
utility to transition between the two. For the delayed transition model
it'll stop at the intermediate "open" point for a configurable amount of
time during which the load is disconnected from everything (i.e. let all
the motors spin down first).

~Seth

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:29:14PM -0400, Jay Ashworth 
wrote:
> I believe the answer to that question is contained here:
> 
>   http://yarchive.net/car/rv/generator_synchronization.html [1]

I wouldn't use a colo that had to sync their generator to the grid.
That is a bad design.

Critical load should be on a battery or flywheel system.  When the
utility is bad (including out) the load should be on the battery or
flywheel for 5-15 seconds before the generators start.  The generators
need to sync to each other.

Essential load (think lighting, AC units) get dropped completely for
30-60 seconds until the generators are stable, and then that load gets
hooked back in.

I have never seen a generator that syncs to the utility for live, no
break transfer.  I'm sure such a thing exists, but that sounds crazy
dangerous to me.  Generators sync to each other, not the utility.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpEyBbM2p4Ax.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Pete Carah]

On 06/25/2011 03:52 PM, Jason Roysdon wrote:
> On 06/25/2011 08:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
>>> Perhaps I read the piece incorrectly, but it certainly sounded to *me* like
>>> the part that was hard was not hitting 60.00, but *staying in sync with
>>> others*...
If the grid is enough bigger than any one generator, that happens
automatically; once
connected, you can't get out of sync without tripping a circuit
breaker.   There are some
minor exceptions for DC and VF AC generation (e.g. solar and wind
respectively)
>> Way I read it, when they occasionally run at 59.9hz for a few hours
>> (and according to my UPS monitoring software this is a regular
>> occurance), they're no longer going to run at 60.1 hz for a while so
>> that the average comes out to 60.
Finer gradations than that, but yes.
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
> This paper describes what they currently do to keep clocks accurate with
> Manual Time Error Correction (which is what they are going to suspect
> for a year):
> http://www.naesb.org/pdf2/weq_bklet_011505_tec_mc.pdf
>
> As I said in my last post, I'm not an EE, but just follow some of topics
> on that side of the house.
>
> What I gather is that Manual TEC, which is done by purposely running the
> frequency away from 60Hz to correct an average deviation, can actually
> cause more problems.
>
> "NERC is investigating the possibility of eliminating Time Error
> Corrections. NERC has been collecting data regarding Interconnection
> frequency performance, including the number of clock-­‐ minutes during
> which actual frequency dropped below the low Frequency Trigger Limit
> (FTL) of 59.95 Hertz. During the period of July 2005 through March 2010,
> approximately 44% of the minutes during which clock-­‐minute actual
> frequency dropped below the low FTL occurred during Time Error
> Corrections when scheduled frequency was 59.98 Hertz (1,875 of the 4,234
> total minutes observed below 59.95 Hertz). Upon further investigation,
> it was found that almost all of those minutes (1,819 of the 1,875 total)
> represented frequency deviations that would likely not have dropped
> frequency below 59.95 Hertz if the scheduled frequency had been 60
> Hertz. In other words, approximately 97% of the Low FTLs were of such a
> magnitude that if the Time Error Correction had not been in effect, the
> exceedance of the low FTL would not have occurred.
This is an example of counting an intentional deviation as a fault and
is really only
an accounting problem (even though the triggers are mostly fixed hardware).
On the other hand, if customers can notice, it matters.  (what was the
SLA again?)

Interesting...  Normally slow is not a problem since it happens normally
when the grid is running near
capacity...  The "frequency runs" (when I worked IT/comms with a power
company they were on Thursday nights after midnight...) were almost
always fast (I was involved in this in the mid 70's mostly; our company
rarely reached capacity but could if the weather was hot enough.)  Given
that the slew command has to be done almost simultaneously at most of
the power plants in US and Canada, in order to avoid the throttle
hunting problem that JDA mentioned (yes, even big plants can hunt, just
ask the NE folks (twice!!!) though
both of them were caused by circuit faults (network partitions) and not
time corrections)

Now that most clocks are run by 32khz crystals and not counting cycles,
the corrections don't matter as much.  I guess the experiment is to find
out who complains...

Then again, as a kid I remember So Cal Edison sending out new rollers
for phonographs (I know - what's that?) when they changed from 50 to
60hz.  Talk about inaccurate clocks (and I don't know what they did
about those either.) And most of LA's hydro was still running generators
that were built for 50hz even into the 70's, so lost some efficiency.
> These Frequency Trigger Limits in and of themselves are only indicators
> of system behavior, but the nature of their relationship to Time Error
> Corrections calls into question the potential impact that Time Error
> Corrections can have on frequency behavior overall. While it is
> intuitively obvious that any frequency offset that moves target
> frequency away from the reference point to which all other frequency
> sensitive devices (such as relays) have been indexed will have a
> potential impact on those devices’ performance, the industry has by and
> large regarded Time Error Corrections as harmless and necessary as part
> of the service it provides to its customers. However, in light of this
> data, NERC’s stakeholders are now questioning whether or not the
> intentional movement closer to (or in some cases, further away from) the
> trigger settings of frequency-­‐based protection devices as is evidenced
> during Time Error Correction events is appropriate.
>
> Accordingly, NERC is planning a Field Trial during which the practice of
> doing Ti

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Jason Roysdon]

On 06/25/2011 02:02 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jason Roysdon" 
> 
>> That's what they're doing here, opting to skip "patching" the time
>> error. They're not ignoring frequency altogether, but rather only
>> minding that aspects that have to do with grid stability, not your alarm
>> clock. This is for the better anyway, and NTP/GPS/WWV/WWVH is the way
>> to go to keep clocks accurate and hopefully will be the outcome of any
>> consumer complaints.
>>
>> I've seen conversation in various forums and lists I read that they are
>> going to ignore or not care about the 60Hz standard. This is incorrect.
>> They just aren't going to purposely deviate from the scheduled
>> frequency to perform manual TEC.
>>
>> Mind you, that they still care about why the frequency is off, and when
>> things are not able to quickly compensate, they want to know and be able
>> to pinpoint it and fix it:
>> http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/Frequency_Response.html
>>
>> Specifically, read this PDF:
>> http://www.nerc.com/docs/oc/rfwg/NERC%20Balancing%20and%20Frequency%20Control%20July%205%202009.pdf
> 
> Thank you, Jason.  I did some searching before I posted that, to see if
> I could locate better information, but clearly, I didn't search hard enough.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'my google-fu requires 60.01Hz :-)' a

NERC's site is very hard to find info on if you don't know where to
look.  Even when you've found something before, it can be hard to find
again.  I run into that nearly monthly and have a document just to help
me navigate to certain areas.

http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=6|386
http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=6|386|391
http://www.nerc.com/files/NERC_TEC_Field_Trial_Webinar_061411.pdf
http://www.nerc.com/filez/Webinars/tec_webinar_061411/index.htm 

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Jason Roysdon" 

> That's what they're doing here, opting to skip "patching" the time
> error. They're not ignoring frequency altogether, but rather only
> minding that aspects that have to do with grid stability, not your alarm
> clock. This is for the better anyway, and NTP/GPS/WWV/WWVH is the way
> to go to keep clocks accurate and hopefully will be the outcome of any
> consumer complaints.
> 
> I've seen conversation in various forums and lists I read that they are
> going to ignore or not care about the 60Hz standard. This is incorrect.
> They just aren't going to purposely deviate from the scheduled
> frequency to perform manual TEC.
> 
> Mind you, that they still care about why the frequency is off, and when
> things are not able to quickly compensate, they want to know and be able
> to pinpoint it and fix it:
> http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/Frequency_Response.html
> 
> Specifically, read this PDF:
> http://www.nerc.com/docs/oc/rfwg/NERC%20Balancing%20and%20Frequency%20Control%20July%205%202009.pdf

Thank you, Jason.  I did some searching before I posted that, to see if
I could locate better information, but clearly, I didn't search hard enough.

Cheers,
-- jr 'my google-fu requires 60.01Hz :-)' a
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Jason Roysdon]

On 06/25/2011 08:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
>> Perhaps I read the piece incorrectly, but it certainly sounded to *me* like
>> the part that was hard was not hitting 60.00, but *staying in sync with
>> others*...
> 
> Way I read it, when they occasionally run at 59.9hz for a few hours
> (and according to my UPS monitoring software this is a regular
> occurance), they're no longer going to run at 60.1 hz for a while so
> that the average comes out to 60.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 

This paper describes what they currently do to keep clocks accurate with
Manual Time Error Correction (which is what they are going to suspect
for a year):
http://www.naesb.org/pdf2/weq_bklet_011505_tec_mc.pdf

As I said in my last post, I'm not an EE, but just follow some of topics
on that side of the house.

What I gather is that Manual TEC, which is done by purposely running the
frequency away from 60Hz to correct an average deviation, can actually
cause more problems.

"NERC is investigating the possibility of eliminating Time Error
Corrections. NERC has been collecting data regarding Interconnection
frequency performance, including the number of clock-­‐ minutes during
which actual frequency dropped below the low Frequency Trigger Limit
(FTL) of 59.95 Hertz. During the period of July 2005 through March 2010,
approximately 44% of the minutes during which clock-­‐minute actual
frequency dropped below the low FTL occurred during Time Error
Corrections when scheduled frequency was 59.98 Hertz (1,875 of the 4,234
total minutes observed below 59.95 Hertz). Upon further investigation,
it was found that almost all of those minutes (1,819 of the 1,875 total)
represented frequency deviations that would likely not have dropped
frequency below 59.95 Hertz if the scheduled frequency had been 60
Hertz. In other words, approximately 97% of the Low FTLs were of such a
magnitude that if the Time Error Correction had not been in effect, the
exceedance of the low FTL would not have occurred.

These Frequency Trigger Limits in and of themselves are only indicators
of system behavior, but the nature of their relationship to Time Error
Corrections calls into question the potential impact that Time Error
Corrections can have on frequency behavior overall. While it is
intuitively obvious that any frequency offset that moves target
frequency away from the reference point to which all other frequency
sensitive devices (such as relays) have been indexed will have a
potential impact on those devices’ performance, the industry has by and
large regarded Time Error Corrections as harmless and necessary as part
of the service it provides to its customers. However, in light of this
data, NERC’s stakeholders are now questioning whether or not the
intentional movement closer to (or in some cases, further away from) the
trigger settings of frequency-­‐based protection devices as is evidenced
during Time Error Correction events is appropriate.

Accordingly, NERC is planning a Field Trial during which the practice of
doing Time Error Corrections will be suspended. Because of the
fundamental nature of this 60Hz signal, NERC is reaching out to various
industries to get their thoughts on whether they anticipate any problems
with the elimination of Time Error Corrections. Those industries include
appliance manufacturers, software companies, chemical manufacturers,
companies that make automation equipment, computer manufacturers, and
many others."

Source:
http://www.wecc.biz/library/Lists/Announcements/Attachments/9/June%2014%20Time%20Error%20Webinar.pdf

The main point I gather is that trying to do manual Time Error
Correction actually makes the power grid less stable at times, and as
such they want to do away with it (thus making the power grid more stable).

Think of it the same as patch management risk assessment.  If there are
no security or bug fixes that directly affect you or even feature
enhancements that you don't need, do you apply a patch/upgrade to
critical systems?  Nah, you skip those, because we all know every
patch/upgrade carries with it risk of an unknown bug or even security flaw.

That's what they're doing here, opting to skip "patching" the time
error.  They're not ignoring frequency altogether, but rather only
minding that aspects that have to do with grid stability, not your alarm
clock.  This is for the better anyway, and NTP/GPS/WWV/WWVH is the way
to go to keep clocks accurate and hopefully will be the outcome of any
consumer complaints.

I've seen conversation in various forums and lists I read that they are
going to ignore or not care about the 60Hz standard.  This is incorrect.
 They just aren't going to purposely deviate from the scheduled
frequency to perform manual TEC.

Mind you, that they still care about why the frequency is off, and when
things are not able to quickly compensate, they want to know and be able
to pinpoint it and fix it:
http://www.nerc.com/filez/sta

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 25, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Jason Roysdon wrote:

> 
> On 06/25/2011 07:49 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Jussi Peltola" 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:29:14PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
 This is gonna be fun, no?
>>> 
>>> If your definition of fun is spending a year watching an old microwave
>>> clock lose or gain a few minutes.
>>> 
>>> I don't see how this has anything to do with syncing two generators.
>>> The grid is in sync, and if the frequency of the grid changes (as it does
>>> all the time) it will stay in sync. It has nothing to do with the
>>> absolute frequency.
>> 
>> Perhaps I read the piece incorrectly, but it certainly sounded to *me* like
>> the part that was hard was not hitting 60.00, but *staying in sync with
>> others*...
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -- jra
> 
> Generators all stay in sync.  Generator owners have expensive devices
> that sync the phase before the generator is connected to the grid.  Once
> a generator is connected to the gird, it will stay in sync - in fact
> that is why they have the expensive devices to make sure that they are
> in sync before they connect them, as if they are not, it will instantly
> jump to being in sync, which may destroy the generator.
> 
As a matter of fact, it may destroy the generator, the housing, the building,
the damn, and more. An out-of-sync generator becomes a motor until it is
in sync. lt can be a graphic and dramatic event.

Owen

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Jason Roysdon]

On 06/25/2011 07:49 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jussi Peltola" 
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:29:14PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> This is gonna be fun, no?
>>
>> If your definition of fun is spending a year watching an old microwave
>> clock lose or gain a few minutes.
>>
>> I don't see how this has anything to do with syncing two generators.
>> The grid is in sync, and if the frequency of the grid changes (as it does
>> all the time) it will stay in sync. It has nothing to do with the
>> absolute frequency.
> 
> Perhaps I read the piece incorrectly, but it certainly sounded to *me* like
> the part that was hard was not hitting 60.00, but *staying in sync with
> others*...
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jra

Generators all stay in sync.  Generator owners have expensive devices
that sync the phase before the generator is connected to the grid.  Once
a generator is connected to the gird, it will stay in sync - in fact
that is why they have the expensive devices to make sure that they are
in sync before they connect them, as if they are not, it will instantly
jump to being in sync, which may destroy the generator.

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I do IT "Cybersecurity" for a local
utility.  The electrical engineering / power utility side of the house
starts to rub off - but I say this as I might not have all the terms
exactly right.  I follow the FERC/NERC discussions as CIP compliance is
one of my primary job duties.

In fact, if you want to see what happens if you connect a generator out
of phase, just look into the AURORA out-of-phase circuit breaker
re-closing issues which were brought to light last year.  Here's some links:
http://www.atcllc.com/oasis/Customer_Notices/ATCNetworkCustomerMeeting052411_Francis.pdf

Here's another link I read in the last week when trying to get up to
speak more:
http://yarchive.net/car/rv/generator_synchronization.html

Jason Roysdon

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> Perhaps I read the piece incorrectly, but it certainly sounded to *me* like
> the part that was hard was not hitting 60.00, but *staying in sync with
> others*...

Way I read it, when they occasionally run at 59.9hz for a few hours
(and according to my UPS monitoring software this is a regular
occurance), they're no longer going to run at 60.1 hz for a while so
that the average comes out to 60.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Jussi Peltola" 

> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:29:14PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > This is gonna be fun, no?
> 
> If your definition of fun is spending a year watching an old microwave
> clock lose or gain a few minutes.
> 
> I don't see how this has anything to do with syncing two generators.
> The grid is in sync, and if the frequency of the grid changes (as it does
> all the time) it will stay in sync. It has nothing to do with the
> absolute frequency.

Perhaps I read the piece incorrectly, but it certainly sounded to *me* like
the part that was hard was not hitting 60.00, but *staying in sync with
others*...

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 153

[Mickey Fox]

Failure to sync = dirty power and a horribly corrupted sine wave. A bit more
than watching an old microwave.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:00 AM,  wrote:

> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
>nanog@nanog.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>nanog-requ...@nanog.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>nanog-ow...@nanog.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures
>  (Jay Ashworth)
>   2. Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency
>  strictures (Jussi Peltola)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:29:14 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jay Ashworth 
> Subject: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency strictures
> To: NANOG 
> Message-ID:
><23981692.56.1308954554440.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> The North American Electric Reliability Council is planning to relax
> the standards for how closely power utilities must hold to 60.00Hz.
>
> Here's my absolute favorite quote of all time:
>
>  Tweaking the power grid's frequency is expensive and takes a lot of
> effort,
>  said Joe McClelland, head of electric reliability for the Federal Energy
>  Regulatory Commission.
>
>  "Is anyone using the grid to keep track of time?" McClelland said. "Let's
> see
>  if anyone complains if we eliminate it."
>
>
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_POWER_CLOCKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
> I believe the answer to that question is contained here:
>
>  http://yarchive.net/car/rv/generator_synchronization.html [1]
>
> This is gonna be fun, no?
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> [1]Please, let's not start in on the source.[2]
> [2]No, really: *please*.  :-)
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC
> 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover
> DII
> St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647
> 1274
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 07:32:41 +0300
> From: Jussi Peltola 
> Subject: Re: Wacky Weekend: NERC to relax power grid frequency
>strictures
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Message-ID: <20110625043241.gf25...@pokute.pelzi.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:29:14PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > This is gonna be fun, no?
>
> If your definition of fun is spending a year watching an old microwave
> clock lose or gain a few minutes.
>
> I don't see how this has anything to do with syncing two generators. The
> grid is in sync, and if the frequency of the grid changes (as it does
> all the time) it will stay in sync. It has nothing to do with the
> absolute frequency.
>
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 153
> **
>

Looking for Contact at Network Solutions

[Mickey Fox]

Good Morning List:

I'm looking for a POC at NetSol because, after 16 years as a customer, we
have a seriously pooched DNS issue and I can't get any capable support over
the phone.

While I am intermittently receiving email on this domain, I seem able to
send it, and I am uncertain that I will receive any nanog responses on the
domain so please contact me @ this email and a cc to m...@magnaturris.com.

domain : cmkconsulting.com

TIA,

Michael Fox
__
Failure is not an option: It comes bundled with Windows

What do you think about the Juniper MX line?

[Chris]

Hello,

I've been doing some research into using the MX line of Juniper
routers and was interested in hearing people's experiences (the good,
bad, and ugly). What do you like about them? What do you dislike?
Where are you putting them in your network? Where are you not putting
them? Why? What other platforms would you consider and why? I hope to
hear some candid responses, but feel free to respond privately if you
need to.

Thanks!