What Worked - What Didn't

Mon Sep 17 20:08:02 UTC 2001

This works fine for static content. But, dynamic content is more difficult.
Not impossible, just more difficult.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgolding at sockeye.com]
|> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 11:09 AM
|> To: tme at 21rst-century.com
|> Cc: Sean Donelan; nanog at merit.edu
|> Subject: RE: What Worked - What Didn't
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> hmm. I don't work for Akamai, so I can't presume to speak 
|> for them, but...
|> 
|> I specified Edgesuite, rather than simply akamizing the 
|> links. I think that
|> moving ALL content, rather than just some linked content to 
|> distributed
|> servers makes a big difference.
|> 
|> - Dan
|> 
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme at 21rst-century.com]
|> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 1:49 PM
|> To: Daniel Golding
|> Cc: Sean Donelan; nanog at merit.edu
|> Subject: Re: What Worked - What Didn't
|> 
|> 
|> Daniel Golding wrote:
|> 
|> > The big lessons seem to be these...
|> >
|> > 1) The Internet, as currently constituted makes a lousy 
|> news propagation
|> > method, for large audiences. The one to many model in 
|> unicast IP puts too
|> > large of a load on the source. Good multicast (which we 
|> don't have yet)
|> may
|> > fix this. Until that happens, the TV is still a better 
|> broadcast news
|> > medium. Mechanisms like Akamai's Edgesuite are a pretty 
|> good solution
|> until
|> > that occurs, as they distribute the load pattern, from a 
|> "one to many" to
|> a
|> > "many to many" model.
|> >
|> 
|> Akamai did not work well Tuesday morning, at least for me. I 
|> do not know
|> whether their servers
|> were overloaded, or couldn't get content from the source, 
|> but they did NOT
|> work
|> well as seen from here.
|> 
|> Washington Post.com, for example, loaded ONCE for me before 
|> about 3:00 PM
|> EDT, and I
|> know that site is Akamized.
|> 
|>                                                              
|>   Contrarily
|> Yours
|>                                                              
|>   Marshall
|> Eubanks
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> >
|> > 2) The Internet is superior to circuit switched services 
|> for one to one
|> > communications during this sort of condition. Fast busies 
|> were the order
|> of
|> > the day in NYC and DC for the PSTN and cell phone networks. Instant
|> > Messanger services, IRC and email were more reliable than 
|> the telephone
|> > network by several orders of magnitude.
|> >
|> > 3) Since the transient from normal conditions was 
|> server-limited, there
|> were
|> > not any significant network congestion issues. The next 
|> time a major event
|> > like this happens (and, of course, there will be a next 
|> time), news sites
|> > may be better prepared, which could cause the next 
|> transient from normal
|> > conditions to be network-limited.
|> >
|> > The big winners were cable TV, email, packet networks and 
|> IM applications.
|> > The big losers with cell phones, circuit switching, PSTN, 
|> non-akamized
|> news
|> > sites.
|> >
|> > (My apologies if this post if perceived to be on-topic, 
|> operational, or
|> has
|> > anything to do with internetworking. We will now return to 
|> our regularly
|> > scheduled, off-topic posts)
|> >
|> > - Daniel Golding
|> >   Sockeye Networks
|> >
|> > -----Original Message-----
|> > From: owner-nanog at merit.edu 
|> [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
|> > Marshall Eubanks
|> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 1:17 PM
|> > To: Sean Donelan
|> > Cc: nanog at merit.edu
|> > Subject: Re: What Worked - What Didn't
|> >
|> > Sean Donelan wrote:
|> >
|> > > As the New York Stock market re-opens, and some things 
|> are returning
|> > > to normal, I'd like to look at how well the Internet 
|> performed last
|> > > week.
|> > >
|> > > At the Oakland NANOG I'd like to give a presentation 
|> about what worked,
|> > > and what didn't work during the last week in regards to 
|> the Internet.  I
|> > > would like to gather what details I can from both small and large
|> > > providers in New York, the rest of the USA, and even 
|> overseas about
|> > > what they saw, what problems they experienced, and what 
|> things worked.
|> > >
|> > > You can send me private mail if you wish, with or 
|> without attribution.
|> > > This is a personal effort, not assocated with my employer.
|> > >
|> > > Oakland NANOG is several weeks away, so I don't expect 
|> an immediate
|> > > response.  I expect many ISPs will be conducting their 
|> own internal
|> > > reviews.  But if you could, please consider responding.  
|> I'm looking
|> > > for input from small, medium and large providers. Thank you.
|> > >
|> > > A few questions, all related to the time between Sept 11 and 17:
|> > >
|> > >  1. Briefly tell me who you are, and generally where 
|> your operations
|> > >     were located?
|> > >
|> > >  2. What worked?
|> > >
|> > >  3. What didn't work?
|> > >
|> > >  4. Did you activate your emergency response plan?
|> > >
|> > >  5. Were you required to do anything different 
|> operationally?  Did you
|> > >     make preventive operational changes?
|> > >
|> > >  6. Were any infrastructure administration functions 
|> impaired, such
|> > >     as DNS registration, routing registry, address delegation?
|> > >
|> > >  7. Were you able to communicate NOC-to-NOC when needed?
|> > >
|> > >  8. Were any means of communications nonfunctional or 
|> impaired (direct
|> > >     dial telephone, toll-free telephone, pager, e-mail, 
|> fax) when you
|> > >     attempted to communicate with other NOC's?
|> > >
|> > >  9. Did you ask for or receive a request for mutual aid 
|> from any other
|> > >     providers?  Was it provided?
|> > >
|> > > 10. Within the limits of safety and rescue efforts, 
|> where you able to
|> > >     gain access to your physical facilities?
|> > >
|> > > 11. Did hoaxes or rumors impact your operations?
|> > >
|> > > 12. Do you have any recommendations how Internet 
|> providers could have
|> > >     responded differently?
|> >
|> > Sean;
|> >
|> >    Multicasting worked. It handled a big traffic spike 
|> without a hiccup.
|> >
|> >                                  Regards
|> >                                  Marshall Eubanks
|> >
|> > T.M. Eubanks
|> > Multicast Technologies, Inc
|> > 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410
|> > Fairfax, Virginia 22030
|> > Phone : 703-293-9624       Fax     : 703-293-9609
|> > e-mail : tme at multicasttech.com
|> > http://www.on-the-i.com
|> >
|> > Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/
|> >  Check the status of multicast in real time :
|> >  http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> T.M. Eubanks
|> Multicast Technologies, Inc
|> 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410
|> Fairfax, Virginia 22030
|> Phone : 703-293-9624       Fax     : 703-293-9609
|> e-mail : tme at multicasttech.com
|> http://www.on-the-i.com
|> 
|> Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/
|>  Check the status of multicast in real time :
|>  http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
|> 
|> 