From where i'm sitting, I see a number of potentially
dangerous trends that could result in some quite catastrophic
failures of networks. No, i'm not predicting that the
internet will end in 8^H7 days or anything like that. I
think the Level3 outage as seen from the outside is a
If events are not properly triggered back upstream (ie:
adjencies stay up, bgp remains fairly stable) and you end up
dumping a lot of traffic on the floor, it's sometimes a bit
more dificult to diagnose than loss of light on a physical path.
On the sunny side, I see this
Wouldn't it be great
if routers had the equivalent of 'User mode Linux' each process
handling a service, isolated and protected from each other. The
physical router would be nothing more than a generic kernel handling
resource allocation. Each virtual router would have access to x amount
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:48:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
History shows that if you can build a mousetrap that is technically
better than anything on the market, your best route for success is
to sell it into niche markets where the customer appreciates the
technical advances that you can
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:48:55PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is possible today. Build your own routers using
the right microkernel, OSKIT and the Click Modular Router
software and you can have this. When we restrict ourselves
only to router packages from major vendors then we
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:05:03AM -0800, David Barak wrote:
--- vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would you know this? Historically, the cutting
edge technology
has always gone into the large cores first because
they are the
ones pushing the bleeding edge in terms of
1) their backbones currently work - changing them
into something which may or may not work better is a
non-trivial operation, and risks the network.
i would disagree. their backbone tend to reach scaling problems, hence the
need for bleeding/leading edge technologies. that's been my
vijay gill wrote:
CEF was designed to support offloading the RP.
Not really. There existed distributed fastswitching before DCEF came
along. It might still exist. CEF was developed to address the issue of
route cache insertion and purging. The unneccessarily painful 60 second
interval new
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:32:07PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
along. It might still exist. CEF was developed to address the issue of
route cache insertion and purging. The unneccessarily painful 60 second
interval new destination stall was widely documented before CEF got
widespread
History shows that if you can build a mousetrap that is technically
better than anything on the market, your best route for success is
to sell it into niche markets where the customer appreciates the
technical advances that you can provide and is willing to pay for
those technical advances.
and this has been so well shown by the blazing successes of
bay networks, avici, what-its-name that burst into flames in
everyone's labs, ...
That's a very good point. Building a router that works (at least
learning from J's example) is hiring away the most important talent
from your
--- vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In all of the above cases, those were the large isps
that forced
development of the boxes. Most of the smaller
cutting edge
networks are still running 7513s.
Hmm - what I was getting at was that the big ISPs for
the most part still have a whole lot
--- vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would you know this? Historically, the cutting
edge technology
has always gone into the large cores first because
they are the
ones pushing the bleeding edge in terms of capacity,
power, and
routing.
/vijay
I'm not sure that I'd agree with
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:28:09AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it be great
if routers had the equivalent of 'User mode Linux' each process
handling a service, isolated and protected from each other. The
physical router would be nothing more than a generic kernel handling
Ok.
I can't sit by here while people speculate about the possible
problems of a network outage.
I think that most everyone here reading NANOG realizes that
the Internet is becoming more and more central to daily life even
for those that are not connected to the internet.
At 10:52 AM 2/25/2004, you wrote:
recommendation come out regarding VoIP calls. How long until a simple
power failure results in the inability to place calls?
We're already at that point. If the power goes out at home, I'd have to
grab a flashlight and go hunting for a regular ol' POTS-powered
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jared Mauch writes:
(I know this is treading on a few what if scenarios, but it could
actually mean a lot if we convert to a mostly IP world as I see the trend).
I think your analysis is dead-on.
--Steve Bellovin,
I'm saying that if a network had a FR/ATM/TDM failure in the past
it would be limited to just the FR/ATM/TDM network. (well, aside from
any IP circuits that are riding that FR/ATM/TDM network). We're now
seeing
the change from the TDM based network being the underlying network to
the
IP/MPLS
From Jared:
I keep hear of Frame-Relay and ATM signaling that is
going to happen in large providers MPLS cores. That's right,
your safe TDM based services, will be transported over
someones IP backbone first.
This means if they don't protect their IP network, the TDM
services
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jared Mauch) writes:
...
I keep hear of Frame-Relay and ATM signaling that is going
to happen in large providers MPLS cores. That's right, your safe TDM
based services, will be transported over someones IP backbone first.
One of my DS3/DS1 vendors recently told me
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 13:34, David Meyer wrote:
Is it that sharing fate in the switching fabric (as
opposed to say, in the transport fabric, or even
conduit) reduces the resiliency of a given service (in
this case FR/ATM/TDM), and as such poses the danger
SNIP
I think it has been proven a few times that physical fate sharing is
only a minor contributor to the total connectivity availability while
system complexity mostly controlled by software written and
operated by
imperfect humans contribute a major share to end-to-end availability.
Yesterday we witnessed a large scale failure that has yet to be
attributed to configuration, software, or hardware; however one need
look no further than the 168.0.0.0/6 thread, or the GBLX customer who
leaked several tens of thousands of their peers' routes to GBLX shortly
This should be
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 20:16, Bora Akyol wrote:
This train of thought works well for only accidental failures,
unfortunately
if you have an adversary that is bent on disturbing communications
and damaging the critical infrastructure of a country, physical faith
sharing
makes things less
Jared,
I keep hear of Frame-Relay and ATM signaling that is going
to happen in large providers MPLS cores. That's right, your safe TDM
based services, will be transported over someones IP backbone first.
This means if they don't protect their IP network, the TDM services could
Convergence, and our lust to throw TDM/ATM infrastructure in the garbge
is an area very near and dear to my heart.
I apologize if I am being a bit redundant here... but from our
perspective, we are an ISP that is under a lot of pressure to deploy a
VoIP solution. I just don't think we can...
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 09:44:51AM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
Jared,
I keep hear of Frame-Relay and ATM signaling that is going
to happen in large providers MPLS cores. That's right, your safe TDM
based services, will be transported over someones IP backbone first.
This means
Jared,
Is your concern that carrying FR/ATM/TDM over a packet
core (IP or MPLS or ..) will, via some mechanism, reduce
the resilience of the those services, of the packet core,
of both, or something else?
I'm saying that if a network had a FR/ATM/TDM failure
David Meyer wrote:
Is this an accurate characterization of your point? If
so, why should sharing fate in the switching fabric
necessarily reduce the resiliency of the those services
that share that fabric (i.e., why should this be so)? I
have some ideas, but I'm interested in what ideas
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
Jared,
Is your concern that carrying FR/ATM/TDM over a packet
core (IP or MPLS or ..) will, via some mechanism, reduce
the resilience of the those services, of the packet core,
of both, or something else?
Petri,
I think it has been proven a few times that physical fate sharing is
only a minor contributor to the total connectivity availability while
system complexity mostly controlled by software written and operated by
imperfect humans contribute a major share to end-to-end
David Meyer wrote:
No doubt. However, the problem is: What constitutes
unnecessary system complexity? A designed system's
robustness comes in part from its complexity. So its not
that complexity is inherently bad; rather, it is just
that you wind up with extreme sensitivity to outlying
32 matches
Mail list logo
