Mailing List Archive: UUNet 10Plus

UUNet 10Plus

Jul 9, 1997, 11:30 AM

Post #1 of 18 (605 views)

Anyone out there using UUNet's 10 plus setup? We were one of the original
beta testers, and have had consistant complaints about the performance of
the link because of the 10Mbps ethernet handoff to us. We can only get
around 6Mbps out of the link before it hoses, and we know that's really
what you're going to get out of 10Mbit ethernet, which is why we've asked
for a different handoff meathod. Also, they charge us $2000 for local
loop to run us to a building downtown, and from there it comes back into
the building we're in, into a room down the hall from our NOC. They have
their own reasons for this I'm sure, but no one's been able to tell me
why. Our problem is that we've maxed out our supposed 10Mbps link, so
they want us to get a metered DS3, charging us $4000 more a month, plus a
setup fee. Now, under current UUNet performance, it's not likely we're
going to do anything like that. It makes no sense to pay $4000 more, plus
a $2000 install fee to get mediocre performance out of them.

My question is, has anyone else out there with 10Plus service gotten a
different handoff from UUNet? If so, how'd you get them to do it, and if
not, did you ask? We've been quite upset with UUNet for the past 5
months, and seriously considering dropping them down to a t1 and using the
DS3 we just had installed from anouther carrier as our main path to the
net, but that does away with being really multi-homed. Any suggestions,
questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand
that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know
why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and
allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing
tiered DS3 service, and if so, why even have 10Plus access? Doesn't make
sense, unless you're a marketer...

Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
"Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

deepak at jain

Jul 9, 1997, 11:52 AM

Post #2 of 18 (602 views)

Permalink

You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.

-Deepak.

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:

> Anyone out there using UUNet's 10 plus setup? We were one of the original
> beta testers, and have had consistant complaints about the performance of
> the link because of the 10Mbps ethernet handoff to us. We can only get
> around 6Mbps out of the link before it hoses, and we know that's really
> what you're going to get out of 10Mbit ethernet, which is why we've asked
> for a different handoff meathod. Also, they charge us $2000 for local
> loop to run us to a building downtown, and from there it comes back into
> the building we're in, into a room down the hall from our NOC. They have
> their own reasons for this I'm sure, but no one's been able to tell me
> why. Our problem is that we've maxed out our supposed 10Mbps link, so
> they want us to get a metered DS3, charging us $4000 more a month, plus a
> setup fee. Now, under current UUNet performance, it's not likely we're
> going to do anything like that. It makes no sense to pay $4000 more, plus
> a $2000 install fee to get mediocre performance out of them.
>
> My question is, has anyone else out there with 10Plus service gotten a
> different handoff from UUNet? If so, how'd you get them to do it, and if
> not, did you ask? We've been quite upset with UUNet for the past 5
> months, and seriously considering dropping them down to a t1 and using the
> DS3 we just had installed from anouther carrier as our main path to the
> net, but that does away with being really multi-homed. Any suggestions,
> questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand
> that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know
> why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and
> allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing
> tiered DS3 service, and if so, why even have 10Plus access? Doesn't make
> sense, unless you're a marketer...
>
> Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
> "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
>
>

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

jshaw at insync

Jul 9, 1997, 12:09 PM

Post #3 of 18 (598 views)

Permalink

Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps,
so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology
behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they
call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than
10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the
Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the
smallest possible presence in our network in the future.

Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
"Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
>
> -Deepak.
>

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

deepak at jain

Jul 9, 1997, 12:17 PM

Post #4 of 18 (599 views)

Permalink

My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was
delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s
portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they
formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit.

Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service.

-Deepak.

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:

> Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps,
> so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology
> behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they
> call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than
> 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the
> Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the
> smallest possible presence in our network in the future.
>
> Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
> "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
>
> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
> >
> > You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
> >
> > -Deepak.
> >
>
>

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

sanjay at professionals

Jul 9, 1997, 12:20 PM

Post #5 of 18 (598 views)

Permalink

>questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand
>that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know
>why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and
>allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing

The last time I talked to a UUnet sales rep with a clue, he
"pretty much" acknowledged that the reason their 10 Plus service
is not much more expensive than the dual T1 service is because they
know the customer can't push 10Mb anyway. He "pretty much" refused to
give the 10 plus service within a NAP --where our router is colocated
with theirs and PNIs are allowed-- over a 10baseT (better than
the netedge) or local loop DS3 handoff.

Sales people never say things directly, hence the "pretty much" quote
above which is my reading of his excuses.

Sanjay.

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

jshaw at insync

Jul 9, 1997, 12:59 PM

Post #6 of 18 (598 views)

Permalink

What I got from UUNet and the VP of our company was that it was delivered
over a 10Mbps ATM circuit, into the Net Edge, then out via 10Mbps
ethernet. We've asked for a better handoff, and they refuse to deliver
it.

Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
"Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:

>
> My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was
> delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s
> portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they
> formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit.
>
> Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service.
>
> -Deepak.
>
> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
>
> > Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps,
> > so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology
> > behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they
> > call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than
> > 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the
> > Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the
> > smallest possible presence in our network in the future.
> >
> > Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
> > NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
> > "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
> > >
> > > You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
> > >
> > > -Deepak.
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

amb at xara

Jul 9, 1997, 2:05 PM

Post #7 of 18 (599 views)

Permalink

Joe,

> What I got from UUNet and the VP of our company was that it was delivered
> over a 10Mbps ATM circuit, into the Net Edge, then out via 10Mbps
> ethernet. We've asked for a better handoff, and they refuse to deliver
> it.

Having (briefly) alpha trialed a 10Mbps ATM / Netedge service on an
MFS Worldcom ATM service, I can state conclusively state that this
will *not* run well. In tests we managed to get a maximum of (from
memory) 3.4Mb/s (running both directions simulatenously) through
the service without it starting to drop packets. You need a decent
bursty load simulator to really hit it, but the Net Edge buffers
were a real problem. A memory upgrade on the NetEdge and them
reworking the config helped, but not much. Our solution was to remove
the NetEdge each end and plug straight into a Cisco AIP. Unsuprisingly
this worked far better (though even that has its problems).
[.Those having religious objections to ATM, please excersize pluralistic
tolerance by not bothering to repeat your objections just now :-) ]

Are they implying that you can get 10Mb/s through this service without
losing packets? (even unidirectionally). I would be interested to see
this demonstrated with a traffic profile which would sit quite happilly
on a 10Mb clocked serial port (or 10/45s of a DS-3 traffic or whatever).

Alex Bligh
Xara Networks

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

alex at nac

Jul 9, 1997, 4:49 PM

Post #8 of 18 (603 views)

Permalink

To my knowledge:

|-------|
10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| ATM |
| |
10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---|Switch |--ATM--|Cisco 4700/7xx0|--(World)
|Cascade|
10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| |
|-------|

I have no idea what the xBR is on the DS3 to the NetEdge.

At 03:17 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
>My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was
>delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s
>portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they
>formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit.
>
>Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service.
>
>-Deepak.
>
>On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
>
>> Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps,
>> so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology
>> behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they
>> call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than
>> 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the
>> Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the
>> smallest possible presence in our network in the future.
>>
>> Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
>> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
>> "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
>> >
>> > You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
>> >
>> > -Deepak.
>> >
>>
>>
>
---

"Don't go with a spineless ISP;
we have more backbone."

Alex Rubenstein -- alex@nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net
net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

alex at nac

Jul 9, 1997, 4:49 PM

Post #9 of 18 (601 views)

Permalink

Also; can you get the NetEdge to do Full Duplex? That could improve your
througput.

At 03:17 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
>My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was
>delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s
>portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they
>formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit.
>
>Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service.
>
>-Deepak.
>
>On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
>
>> Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps,
>> so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology
>> behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they
>> call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than
>> 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the
>> Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the
>> smallest possible presence in our network in the future.
>>
>> Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
>> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
>> "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
>> >
>> > You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
>> >
>> > -Deepak.
>> >
>>
>>
>
---

"Don't go with a spineless ISP;
we have more backbone."

Alex Rubenstein -- alex@nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net
net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

alex at nac

Jul 9, 1997, 4:50 PM

Post #10 of 18 (599 views)

Permalink

Which NAP is that?

At 12:20 PM 7/9/97 -0700, Sanjay Dani wrote:
>
>>questions, or comments would be appreciated. Once again, I understand
>>that you only get 6Mbps out of a 10Mbps ethernet link, I just want to know
>>why UUNet won't deliver a better handoff to their 10Plus customers and
>>allow them to actually get 10Mbps. I guess they're going to try pushing
>
>The last time I talked to a UUnet sales rep with a clue, he
>"pretty much" acknowledged that the reason their 10 Plus service
>is not much more expensive than the dual T1 service is because they
>know the customer can't push 10Mb anyway. He "pretty much" refused to
>give the 10 plus service within a NAP --where our router is colocated
>with theirs and PNIs are allowed-- over a 10baseT (better than
>the netedge) or local loop DS3 handoff.
>
>Sales people never say things directly, hence the "pretty much" quote
>above which is my reading of his excuses.
>
>Sanjay.
>
---

"Don't go with a spineless ISP;
we have more backbone."

Alex Rubenstein -- alex@nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net
net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

sanjay at professionals

Jul 9, 1997, 5:14 PM

Post #11 of 18 (595 views)

Permalink

>Which NAP is that?

http://www.ix.digital.com

>>know the customer can't push 10Mb anyway. He "pretty much" refused to
>>give the 10 plus service within a NAP --where our router is colocated

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

dougd at airmail

Jul 9, 1997, 5:34 PM

Post #12 of 18 (596 views)

Permalink

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

pkline at cisco

Jul 9, 1997, 9:26 PM

Post #13 of 18 (602 views)

Permalink

Men,

From my recollection of NetEdge connections from WorldCom Santa Clara to
MFS at Market St. in San Jose, the NetEdges have to be used in pairs, like:

CPE -- 10baseT/FDDI ---|netedge|--- DS3 ---|netedge|--- 10baseT/FDDI -- switch

In otherwords, the NetEdges act as bridges, which have to be used in a pair
in order to turn the ethernet or FDDI connection into ATM over the DS3 and
back. The NetEdges are programmable, and I'm sure that bandwidth is one of
the things that's configurable.

We used to run these things fairly full and fairly hard for extensive
periods of time. I think we were able to get about 30Mpbs full duplex out
of them. I doubt that dropping packets at ~6Mpbs is the NetEdges' fault
(unless you had really old ones).

The fundamental problem at the upper bound is that you're taking IP,
encapsulating it in ethernet or FDDI, then segmenting and further
encapsulating that (IP inside ethernet/FDDI) inside ATM. The double
encapsulation extracts even more of a tax than the !53 bunch usually
complain about.

In the end, in addition to needing more than the 30Mpbs bandwidth to the
MAE which the NetEdges gave us, the NetEdge solution was more trouble than
it was worth because of our inability to monitor the NetEdges for trouble
(not that they couldn't be monitored, but they were MFS owned gear). We
had to rely on Datanet to tell us what was going on, and many times problem
resolution gave as a cause FWT (fixed while testing), which customers were
always reluctant to accept as cause.

If you're interested in a second opinion, you might try contacting NetEdge
directly.

good luck,
-peter

At 07:49 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
>To my knowledge:
>
> |-------|
>10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| ATM |
> | |
>10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---|Switch |--ATM--|Cisco 4700/7xx0|--(World)
> |Cascade|
>10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| |
> |-------|
>
>I have no idea what the xBR is on the DS3 to the NetEdge.
>
>
>
>At 03:17 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
>>
>>My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was
>>delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s
>>portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they
>>formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit.
>>
>>Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service.
>>
>>-Deepak.
>>
>>On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps,
>>> so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology
>>> behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they
>>> call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than
>>> 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the
>>> Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the
>>> smallest possible presence in our network in the future.
>>>
>>> Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
>>> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
>>> "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
>>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
>>> >
>>> > You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
>>> >
>>> > -Deepak.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>---
>
> "Don't go with a spineless ISP;
> we have more backbone."
>
>Alex Rubenstein -- alex@nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net
>net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725
>
>

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

mikeg at savvis

Jul 10, 1997, 8:36 AM

Post #14 of 18 (596 views)

Permalink

Those not interested in Ethernet to ATM control D now...

We are trialing a very similar product so I have been following this
thread
closely. Peter's insight is useful, thanks. Before we go too hard on
NetEdge,
however, we should understand that there are a lot of options that are
used
in deploying a service like this. In our case we run the NetEdge in
routed
mode and leave the DS-3 completely open (Deepak suggested UUNet might
also).
This ATM flow then goes directly to our GigaRouter over an ATM PVC (DS-3
to OC-3).
(FYI, we use the EDGE 40 model.)

This eliminates ATM overhead as an issue on the local loop so any loss
would have to be "network" related in the upstream direction. The
upstream
flow is metered by the limitation of the Ethernet access on the customer
premise, and although the EDGE 40 has lots of buffers, I would expect
few
are in use in the upstream direction except to manage SAR/processor
pipeline
delay.

However, this overpowered connection, while generally good for the
customer in the upstream direction may pose a problem for the downstream
direction where an open DS-3 can blast into the Ethernet. (Even if the
DS-3
Local loop is metered (paced) to match Ethernet speeds it should not
matter much
since we will just be pushing the buffering problem around.)

Therefore, the ATM to Ethernet buffer is the key. The EDGE 40 has a
pretty
deep buffer pool (about 2 Mbytes I'm told) so I would expect a pretty
big
burst could be tolerated. I would like to know if any of the
folks trialing the service were able to determine if their
loss/throughput
problems were upstream, downstream or bidirectinal.

Regards,

Mike Gaddis
EVP & CTO
SAVVIS Communications Corporation

Peter Kline wrote:
>
> Men,
>
> >From my recollection of NetEdge connections from WorldCom Santa Clara to
> MFS at Market St. in San Jose, the NetEdges have to be used in pairs, like:
>
> CPE -- 10baseT/FDDI ---|netedge|--- DS3 ---|netedge|--- 10baseT/FDDI -- switch
>
> In otherwords, the NetEdges act as bridges, which have to be used in a pair
> in order to turn the ethernet or FDDI connection into ATM over the DS3 and
> back. The NetEdges are programmable, and I'm sure that bandwidth is one of
> the things that's configurable.
>
> We used to run these things fairly full and fairly hard for extensive
> periods of time. I think we were able to get about 30Mpbs full duplex out
> of them. I doubt that dropping packets at ~6Mpbs is the NetEdges' fault
> (unless you had really old ones).
>
> The fundamental problem at the upper bound is that you're taking IP,
> encapsulating it in ethernet or FDDI, then segmenting and further
> encapsulating that (IP inside ethernet/FDDI) inside ATM. The double
> encapsulation extracts even more of a tax than the !53 bunch usually
> complain about.
>
> In the end, in addition to needing more than the 30Mpbs bandwidth to the
> MAE which the NetEdges gave us, the NetEdge solution was more trouble than
> it was worth because of our inability to monitor the NetEdges for trouble
> (not that they couldn't be monitored, but they were MFS owned gear). We
> had to rely on Datanet to tell us what was going on, and many times problem
> resolution gave as a cause FWT (fixed while testing), which customers were
> always reluctant to accept as cause.
>
> If you're interested in a second opinion, you might try contacting NetEdge
> directly.
>
> good luck,
> -peter
>
> At 07:49 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> >To my knowledge:
> >
> > |-------|
> >10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| ATM |
> > | |
> >10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---|Switch |--ATM--|Cisco 4700/7xx0|--(World)
> > |Cascade|
> >10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| |
> > |-------|
> >
> >I have no idea what the xBR is on the DS3 to the NetEdge.
> >
> >
> >
> >At 03:17 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
> >>
> >>My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was
> >>delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s
> >>portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they
> >>formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit.
> >>
> >>Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service.
> >>
> >>-Deepak.
> >>
> >>On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps,
> >>> so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology
> >>> behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they
> >>> call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than
> >>> 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the
> >>> Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the
> >>> smallest possible presence in our network in the future.
> >>>
> >>> Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
> >>> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
> >>> "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
> >>> >
> >>> > -Deepak.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >---
> >
> > "Don't go with a spineless ISP;
> > we have more backbone."
> >
> >Alex Rubenstein -- alex@nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net
> >net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725
> >
> >

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

jshaw at insync

Jul 10, 1997, 9:37 AM

Post #15 of 18 (599 views)

Permalink

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Doug Davis wrote:

>
> We were one of the first 10Plus Customers as well. It was delivered to
> us via Half Duplex UTP off an ethernet card in the back of a 7513. I
> believe they still do this if you share a building with one of their
> pops. But you will have to ask them, good luck though, I'm still
> waiting for their news servers to quit kicking out "Too Many
> Connection" messages to us.
>

Same problem with us. "Too many connections..." UUNet sure is having
some horrible growing pains since being bought by MFS and then WorldCom,
and their inability to work with their customers makes me believe they
might not be a part of my network any longer. I cannot honestly tell my
employer to buy a bigger pipe to UUNet with their past performance and the
attitude they've given us over the last 8 months. We shall see...

Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
Learn more, and you will never starve.

Re: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

jshaw at insync

Jul 10, 1997, 9:46 AM

Post #16 of 18 (599 views)

Permalink

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Peter Kline wrote:

> Men,
>
> CPE -- 10baseT/FDDI ---|netedge|--- DS3 ---|netedge|--- 10baseT/FDDI -- switch
>
> In otherwords, the NetEdges act as bridges, which have to be used in a pair
> in order to turn the ethernet or FDDI connection into ATM over the DS3 and
> back. The NetEdges are programmable, and I'm sure that bandwidth is one of
> the things that's configurable.

That's the connection we have alright, but MFS/UUNet says they cannot
limit the amount of bandwidth on it, and that if they gave us a 100Mbps
handoff off the NetEdge box, then we'd get 100Mbps off it and there was
nothing they could do. My response was why not provision the ATM bridge
to 10-13Mbps, and use that to limit the data throughput? Seems that would
work, but they said no go. Frustrating.

>
> We used to run these things fairly full and fairly hard for extensive
> periods of time. I think we were able to get about 30Mpbs full duplex out
> of them. I doubt that dropping packets at ~6Mpbs is the NetEdges' fault
> (unless you had really old ones).

Yes, it was an old one, and after months of complaining they finally
delivered a new one yesterday morning. It is working MUCH better, but as
soon as the link approaches 6Mbps or more, it starts choking hard.

> The fundamental problem at the upper bound is that you're taking IP,
> encapsulating it in ethernet or FDDI, then segmenting and further
> encapsulating that (IP inside ethernet/FDDI) inside ATM. The double
> encapsulation extracts even more of a tax than the !53 bunch usually
> complain about.
>
> If you're interested in a second opinion, you might try contacting NetEdge
> directly.

Indeed. That's what I plan on doing today... Thanks for the input.

> good luck,
> -peter
>

Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
"Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee

Re: Re[2]: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

karl at Mcs

Jul 10, 1997, 11:17 AM

Post #17 of 18 (601 views)

Permalink

They do add up. MFS lost us as a Chicago MAE customer because they couldn't
provide transit at anything approaching real 10Mbps speed.

6Mbps is about the limit of our actual performance that we were able to
achieve, and that counts both transmit and receive performance combined.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal

On Thu, Jul 10, 1997 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Rocky Rosas wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding how our product works
> and what it's capabilities are. I would be happy to share insight
> into how MFS uses our equipment and share with you information on
> performance and ATM traffic shaping capabilities.
>
> Obviously, I'm also interested in how you tested and measured the
> throughput numbers you received. The numbers you are reporting don't
> add up. I'd like to help you get to the bottom of the issue.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rocky Rosas
> Director, Technical Services
> NetEdge Systems, Inc.
> rosas@netedge.com
>
> Support: 800 NET-ATM1
> support@netedge.com
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: UUNet 10Plus
> Author: Joe Shaw <jshaw@insync.net> at internet_mail
> Date: 7/10/97 11:46 AM
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Peter Kline wrote:
>
> > Men,
> >
> > CPE -- 10baseT/FDDI ---|netedge|--- DS3 ---|netedge|--- 10baseT/FDDI -- switch
> >
> > In otherwords, the NetEdges act as bridges, which have to be used in a pair
> > in order to turn the ethernet or FDDI connection into ATM over the DS3 and
> > back. The NetEdges are programmable, and I'm sure that bandwidth is one of
> > the things that's configurable.
>
> That's the connection we have alright, but MFS/UUNet says they cannot
> limit the amount of bandwidth on it, and that if they gave us a 100Mbps
> handoff off the NetEdge box, then we'd get 100Mbps off it and there was
> nothing they could do. My response was why not provision the ATM bridge
> to 10-13Mbps, and use that to limit the data throughput? Seems that would
> work, but they said no go. Frustrating.
>
> >
> > We used to run these things fairly full and fairly hard for extensive
> > periods of time. I think we were able to get about 30Mpbs full duplex out
> > of them. I doubt that dropping packets at ~6Mpbs is the NetEdges' fault
> > (unless you had really old ones).
>
> Yes, it was an old one, and after months of complaining they finally
> delivered a new one yesterday morning. It is working MUCH better, but as
> soon as the link approaches 6Mbps or more, it starts choking hard.
>
> > The fundamental problem at the upper bound is that you're taking IP,
> > encapsulating it in ethernet or FDDI, then segmenting and further
> > encapsulating that (IP inside ethernet/FDDI) inside ATM. The double
> > encapsulation extracts even more of a tax than the !53 bunch usually
> > complain about.
> >
> > If you're interested in a second opinion, you might try contacting NetEdge
> > directly.
>
> Indeed. That's what I plan on doing today... Thanks for the input.
>
> > good luck,
> > -peter
> >
>
> Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
> NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
> "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
>
>
>
>
>

Re[2]: UUNet 10Plus [ In reply to ]

rosas at NetEdge

Jul 10, 1997, 2:03 PM

Post #18 of 18 (600 views)

Permalink

Joe,

There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding how our product works
and what it's capabilities are. I would be happy to share insight
into how MFS uses our equipment and share with you information on
performance and ATM traffic shaping capabilities.

Obviously, I'm also interested in how you tested and measured the
throughput numbers you received. The numbers you are reporting don't
add up. I'd like to help you get to the bottom of the issue.

Thanks,

Rocky Rosas
Director, Technical Services
NetEdge Systems, Inc.
rosas@netedge.com

Support: 800 NET-ATM1
support@netedge.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: UUNet 10Plus
Author: Joe Shaw <jshaw@insync.net> at internet_mail
Date: 7/10/97 11:46 AM

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Peter Kline wrote:

> Men,
>
> CPE -- 10baseT/FDDI ---|netedge|--- DS3 ---|netedge|--- 10baseT/FDDI -- switch
>
> In otherwords, the NetEdges act as bridges, which have to be used in a pair
> in order to turn the ethernet or FDDI connection into ATM over the DS3 and
> back. The NetEdges are programmable, and I'm sure that bandwidth is one of
> the things that's configurable.

That's the connection we have alright, but MFS/UUNet says they cannot
limit the amount of bandwidth on it, and that if they gave us a 100Mbps
handoff off the NetEdge box, then we'd get 100Mbps off it and there was
nothing they could do. My response was why not provision the ATM bridge
to 10-13Mbps, and use that to limit the data throughput? Seems that would
work, but they said no go. Frustrating.

>
> We used to run these things fairly full and fairly hard for extensive
> periods of time. I think we were able to get about 30Mpbs full duplex out
> of them. I doubt that dropping packets at ~6Mpbs is the NetEdges' fault
> (unless you had really old ones).

Yes, it was an old one, and after months of complaining they finally
delivered a new one yesterday morning. It is working MUCH better, but as
soon as the link approaches 6Mbps or more, it starts choking hard.

> The fundamental problem at the upper bound is that you're taking IP,
> encapsulating it in ethernet or FDDI, then segmenting and further
> encapsulating that (IP inside ethernet/FDDI) inside ATM. The double
> encapsulation extracts even more of a tax than the !53 bunch usually
> complain about.
>
> If you're interested in a second opinion, you might try contacting NetEdge
> directly.

Indeed. That's what I plan on doing today... Thanks for the input.

> good luck,
> -peter
>

Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
"Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee