Re: Possible topic?

[Snowdog <snowdog () charm net>]

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 () 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 () bigfoot com
> > snowdog () 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 () pagenet net
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ****