Possible topic?
Snowdog
snowdog at charm.net
Wed Oct 22 18:53:17 UTC 1997
Steven (and all),
First I feel I should apologize to you and Sprint. I have spoken
with our MCI guy and found out that they are waiting on the install
of 2 DS3's on Oct. 30th. One being installed in to Sprint NAP 3
and one in to Sprint NAP 4. I am not sure why he mentioned that
there was a problem with the NAP itself. It might have been
easier than explaining to us that they needed additional
bandwidth. :) At any rate, I jumped the gun in the assumption
of the story I was being fed.
The two tickets we have open with MCI are:
794 (Sept 13)
1320 (Oct 6)
They are supposed to be appended to other tickets as well.
Sean Rolinson
snowdog at charm.net
>
> At 21:03 10/21/97 -0400, Snowdog wrote:
> >Hey all,
> >
> >If I could add a NAP to this list, the Sprint NAP is having
> >horrific packet loss and I understand that legal action
> >was necessary to get the invovled parties to resolve the
> >situation.
> >
> According to my GIGAswitch counters this claim is without basis. The
> Sprint NAP is not suffering any packet loss, let alone "horrific". What
> legal action are you referring to? Is this action towards the ISPs or the
> Sprint NAP? I know of no legal action against us!
>
> >Here's the information I received from a source at MCI. I
> >suggest you label this information as rumor and change it
> >as you see fit. :)
> >
> Can you reveal your source? I have received no complaints from MCI or
> others at the NAP.
>
> >There is a FDDI Ring at the NAP which was overcrowded.
> >It apparently took some legal action to get Sprint
> >(or whoever is responsible for the Sprint NAP :) )
> >to make the necessary upgrades. What I've heard is that
> >4 GigaSwitches are being installed from MFS and that
> >this installation/upgrade ETR is 1-2 months.
> >
> You obviously have no knowledge of Sprint's NAP topology! All providers
> are directly connected to GIGAswitch ports. Only providers with one (1)
> DS3 to their router share one GIGAswitch LAN. Hardly enough traffic to
> saturate a 100 Mbps (dedicated) LAN!
>
> >What I can tell you for sure is that we are seeing between
> >10-25% packet loss on a daily basis across that NAP. We
> >have seen these numbers on both our MCI and UUNet connection.
> >(for the record, the UUNet packet loss is generally lower,
> >of course I get randomnly disconnected from various sites
> >when using UUNet... its all compromise these days...)
> >
> This packet loss may be caused on the ingress/egress WAN links and not
> attributed to the NAP.
>
> >So, where is Bob Metcalfe when you need him??? :)
> >
> >Sorry for the me too post... I feel like an AOLer...
> >
> >Sean Rolinson
> >snowdog at bigfoot.com
> >snowdog at charm.net
> >
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ****
>
> Phone: 1.816.854.2113
> Fax: 1.816.854.2201
>
> Numeric Pages: 1.800.724.3329, PIN 398.6644
> Alpha Pages: 1.800.724.3508, PIN 398.6644
> Outside U.S.: +1.619.279.8495, PIN 398.6644
>
> Text Page via Internet: 8882079104.3986644 at pagenet.net
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ****
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list