North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
RE: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP
- From: Goldstein_William
- Date: Tue Mar 31 16:27:51 1998
TO ALL NANOG PROPELLERHEAD TYPES MAKIN' REMARKS ON ATM:
Da switch makers, ya know, dese guys had a problem. No matter how good
business was, da stock keeps goin' down. Wid MPOA solvin' alla da
problems, dey figured dis was unfair, dat dey should be solid, steadily
growing stocks now dat dey no longer had to live life in da fast LANE.
So, da ATM Forum has decided to sorta upgrade da public relations
approach.
Please be advised dat all youse geniusues makin' skeptical an' udderwise
unsundry remarks on ATM is now subject to a personal interview from a
special representative udda ATM Forum.
On da boat.
On a nice, long ocean voyage...
(And alla youse gigabit ethernet wanks--ya know what we can do wid a
little ether, heh, heh, heh!)
Bill "The Mangler" Goldstein
Chief Crusher and Mixer
Dept. of Concrete Overshoes
Enforcement Division
The ATM Forum
;-)
----------
From: dlr
Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 6:41 PM
To: nanog
Cc: dlr
Subject: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP
Received: from wayne1.bns.att.com (wayne1.bns.att.com
[135.170.166.240])
by pawayn01.bns.att.com (8.8.6/1.3) with ESMTP id SAA13273
for <Goldstein_William/bcs_pawayn01@pawayn01.bns.att.com>; Mon, 30
Mar 1998 18:49:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from caig1.att.att.com (caig1.att.att.com [192.128.52.73])
by wayne1.bns.att.com (8.7.3/2.5) with ESMTP id TAA19164 for
<goldstein_william@bns.att.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:01:20 -0500
(EST)
Received: (from nuucp@localhost)
by caig1.att.att.com (AT&T/GW-1.0) id SAA11015;
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:21 -0500 (EST)
>Received: by cagw1.att.com; Mon Mar 30 18:42 EST 1998
Received: by cagw1.att.com; Mon Mar 30 18:42 EST 1998
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA24784;
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:44:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:07
-0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA24671
for nanog-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from daver.bungi.com (daver.bungi.com [207.126.97.2])
by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA24666
for <nanog@merit.edu>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:41:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: by daver.bungi.com
via sendmail with stdio
id <m0yJoAm-0000DnC@daver.bungi.com>
for nanog@merit.edu; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:41:00 -0800 (PST)
(Smail-3.2.0.94 1997-Apr-22 #8 built 1997-Jun-19)
Message-Id: <m0yJoAm-0000DnC@daver.bungi.com>
From: dlr@bungi.com (Dave Rand)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:41:00 PST
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Operational issue: Packet loss at Pacbell NAP
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text
--------------------------------------------------
Several of my peers at PB NAP are reporting significant loss (>10%)
over the
PB NAP. All are OC3 connected, and it seems that PB doesn't have the
ability to look too closely at OC3 connections.
Death of the 'net predicted: film at 11.
So, does this mean that ATM NAPs also have problems with high traffic
load?
--
Dave Rand
dlr@bungi.com
http://www.bungi.com
|
