Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
A few years ago I had to do major incident planning for the emergency services so we were running through likely scenarios. The one that sticks in my mind as being described as worryingly feasible was the caesium based dirty bomb which would remove access to an area the size of docklands++ for longer than the diesel supplies would last. Seems reasonable to avoid a geophysical SPOF On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:00, Ben King b...@warwicknet.com wrote: Hi Stephen, Coming back to you on your original point, you make a valid point that if you lose London you lose most of the UK, from my perspective though UK is far from the whole game, we only supply businesses in a pretty region specific area, the vast majority customers are directly connected to our network (as opposed to via another providers active network) and all customers have a route to Manchester that avoids London, so in the event of a London fail I am sure they would be delighted to be able to continue to send traffic outside of the UK and carry on their international business relations (I concede there may be other hurdles that get in the way in that scenario). I think you actually highlight is that ideally more providers should be attempting to be present in both London and Manchester to give greater UK diversity. Regards... Ben On 30 October 2013 17:41, Stephen Wilcox steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote: Well, take a list of Tier1s: ATT Qwest Savvis DT XO GTT Verizon Sprint Telia NTT Level3 Tata Zayo Cogent FT Seabone Remove any that only have BGP PoPs in docklands or no UK POP, this leaves: GTT Level3 Zayo Cogent Remove any that dont interconnect outside docklands with BT, Virgin, Talktalk, Sky: Level3.. maybe? Cogent.. maybe? Zayo.. maybe? Why not pick someone not in the tier1 list with better UK connectivity and network (that was my prior point) this gives you a wide choice. Steve On 30 October 2013 17:28, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote: Continuing this thread; Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2 Smelehouse East / North / West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather than all of London? Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc. Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is more specifically what I'm after. Cheers, James. -- Ben King b...@warwicknet.com WarwickNet - The Business Science Park ISP Tel: 024 7699 7222 Mob: 07973 848007 http://www.warwicknet.com
Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem
On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:16, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: On 30/10/2013 16:07, Haroldo F. Jardim hfjar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Steve, I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL controller for a couple of years now without any problems. Haroldo, Do you see any noticeable difference in sync performance? One of the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about doing a wires free service is the requirements in compatibility between chipset vendors, and personally speaking in the past (with Cisco 8xx specifically) on ADSL2/2+ was pretty challenging with different chipsets in different CPE/DSLAMS. Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring roll out. Regards, Neil. The issue was in the 870s with a wierd interaction between the Alcatel modem chipset STMI and the Huawei MSAN IFTN Cisco moved to Broadcom chipsets for their newer kit which have proven to be *much* better both in the 800 series and in the HWIC Mike
Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
Answers inline On 30 Oct 2013, at 22:58, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: Michael, Absolute rubbish! Joy How do tesco get food onto shelves? p sure they have a contingency plan How does the NHS exchange information on patients? Bless. I am so glad that it appears that the NHS exchanges useful info in a meaningful manner, makes me very proud to be a part of it. How does the country manage its infrastructure in the widest sense. It tends to route around bad things and shut down or ignore that which it can't Answer- The Internet’s that we build and operate today. Our networks in docklands are Critical national infrastructure. The army won’t be holding us back, they will be assisting us to build the plan to recover. Yes except it won't be about roping in some people. Your infrastructure will be u/s I thought we learned this from the WTC. I don’t agree with your assumption that this wouldn’t be allowed, look at Japan for a reference of it being allowed. Is it desirable, no it isn’t, but sometimes you just have to roll your sleeves up and put on the radiation suits. Japan was a very different type of event and those weren't volunteers getting your networks to stay up so that packets could flow, they were trying to stop cores from going critical. Answer to this is: If you haven't already been part of the planning in case so already know ~exactly~ what would happen then you aren't considered to be critical. Sorry... I am sure there are assets there that are deemed to be v important but I also am 100% sure that they aren't critical failure points. which was the point of this Neil. Best wishes Mike From: Michael Simpson mikie.simp...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 22:00 To: Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: It would’t remove the access to the site. It would just mean you needed a lot of volunteer to spend a short amount of time in the location. A dirty bomb like this would most likely do little damage to the infrastructure in the location. Regards, Neil. That sounds good but it really isn't going to happen. You won't be allowed to expose civilian volunteers to Caesium dust until the area has been decontaminated and getting the POPs back up is not going to be the first priority. I agree that there will be very little physical damage (compared to something like Grangemouth going up) but the buckets of diesel toting volunteers won't get through the army cordons. a lot of volunteer heh that's you bankrupted from the class action brought by the first people to get cancer post event whether it is linked or not. Inhaled caesium can be horrendous and removal of access is part of the reason for these bombs (maximises both terror and disruption) http://www.aristatek.com/drjbomb.aspx that was based on one ounce of Ce137 Also, just for fun, try doing some stuff in an NBC suit and do some costings on decontamination units that are suitable for this threat (eg not just asbestos grade) bearing in mind that the demand for them locally might be *quite* high. If I was part of the team controlling the MI and you came to me asking for entry to fill your genny I would be disinclined to allow it and unless the facility is filtered to clean room standards the whole lot is junk anyway. I might even be cheeky and ask you why you weren't regionally diverse in your connections but i would be under a fair bit of stress at the time. :) mike /derail
Re: [uknof] Consumer broadband packet scheduling
On 8 Apr 2011, at 22:28, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: Is the main purpose of traffic shaping not to relieve congestion in the core/backhaul. To do this in the dslam would require it to know about packet drop some way upstream from it. If the dslam is overcontended then it would make sense to control traffic there but which is the greater problem? fair point — but by the same token it doesn't follow necessarily to move all of the traffic management into the core if backhaul is a problem, to my uneducated eyes… depends where exactly the congestion's occurring, as you say, especially if that means you're then reliant on slightly “interesting” mechanisms in order to achieve it. Identify the congested links and identify the traffic type then either apply queuing downstream of it (in the case of p2p) or utilise cdn to move popular content closer to the eyeballs. why “in the case of p2p”? what if a bunch of people are doing whacking great HTTP or RTSP transfers that's causing overcontention? CDN only helps in some scenarios, and has some “interesting” economic angles. consider... customer A has a P2P session (e.g., Spotify, or a multiplayer game) consuming a modest amount of bandwidth. customer B has an RTSP stream pulling a couple of megabits a second. in times of contention, which one would get penalised? M. I suppose one of the problems that p2p (be it bittorrent or VOIP) causes is that it tends to fill the upstream as well as the downstream pipe as opposed to the customer with a large http stream where only acks are being sent back. I suspect that when the BB infrastructure was being provisioned then it was assumed that almost all data would be flowing towards eyeballs and little would be coming back. This probably explains the vast majority of home offerings having much smaller upstream speeds even when it isn't dictated by the technology eg FTTP I also suspect that the methods of determining customer flows are so significant in terms of hardware requirements that it is easier to do it on a well specified core router/switch and therefore also easier to manage than placing the necessary intelligence to gather the information at the edge and transmitting it to the noc then sending back the necessary changes to the edge in real time. mike
