North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: UBR at MAE-East ATM, anyone?
Yes. To me, it seems that WCom is policing the amount of traffic one can shove into a ATM port, so the giga-fiasco doesn't occur again, which I guess is somewhat of a legitmate cause. However, the difference between the giga and the atm solution is (obviously) there is no such thing as 'head-of-line' blocking on the ATM. Moving to the UBR will allow you to more smartly fill your pipe, and not have arbitrary restrictions on the flows you send in; essentially, the bottle neck with the PCR = 2 * SCR is the PVC, not the port. Considering the nature of internet traffic, this seems silly. However, the ability to build multiple PVC's in parallel from/to the same ports is important to us, and BeerMaker allows us to do this; we'd like to not lose this functionality. On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Lauren F. Nowlin wrote: > Thanks for your update Steve and to Alex for getting the ball rolling. > > ONYX would also like to see this change implemented. > > The model the AADS team uses is far superior to any other scheme to > 'monitor' interactions between peers at the PVC level. Hands-off full mesh > build is the easiest to activate rapidly without botched PVCs trickling in > one-by-one or stuck in a random queue of a departed employee... The > PeerMaker method is too human intensive for little to no gain from an > operational sense. A negative if you can't use the capacity for fear of > artificial caps being exceeded with other peers, which is the case noted > below. > > Also, I've never understood why PBNAP PVC build requests between two > customers - approved by both customers - have to be sent to PacBell > Marketing for approval... > > Alex, let me know if I can help your efforts in any way. > > Thanks again, > -Ren > > At 10:15 PM 4/17/00 -0700, Steve Feldman wrote: > > >When I left wcom, there was a project starting to > >implement an option to provision UBR PVCs. > >It required non-trivial changes to Peermaker, > >so would take some time. > > > >I'll let the current MAE crew answer as to current state, > >availability, etc. > > Steve > > > >On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 10:37:17PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > I've been talking to the WCom MAE folk, and the explained to me that the > > > the VC's between beers are built as ABR, with PCR being twice SCR. Also, > > > the port you lease from them has a non-oversubscription policy, i.e., the > > > sum of all SCR's combined cannot be more than port speed. > > > > > > >From what I can tell, PBNap and Ameritech both build the VC's as UBR, with > > > no over-allocation protection. > > > > > > In my travels of contacting other providers for peer information, I have > > > run across about 5 (albeit out of about 60 who responded) that said they > > > couldn't turn up new VC's across MAE-East ATM, because they have reached > > > thier subscription allocation, even though thier port is not nearly full. > > > A few had even expressed they wish that it was the ameritech-like UBR > > > model. > > > > > > One person who I spoke to at WCom had said that maybe someday they would > > > allow UBR PVCs, but there was no timeline. > > > > > > What are other people's thoughts on this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Ren > > Lauren F. Nowlin, [email protected] > Director, Peering - [email protected] > ONYX Networks - http://www.onyx.net/peering/ > Office: 650-558-3262, Fax: 650-558-3160, Cell: 650-281-6963 > >