NLR and Internet2 are in a bit of a love-hate relationship, but that's much
too complex a story for a simple e-mail. It might require a group meeting
at, say, Boulder Brewing Co., with a whiteboard and LOTS of beer.
TAMU did, indeed, have problems. Last night, they accomplished the
electrical work they'd threatened to do before Christmas. A server wasn't
powered up, and I didn't identify the problem in a timely manner, since I
was traveling to AMS. And, note, while I'm still helping, I don't work at
A&M anymore. I've moved north to OU and NSSL... I helped them get the
server problem identified, and explained the inner workings. It's back up
and had over 100 connections within a couple of minutes. Apologies for all
the inconvenience.
Theoretically, A&M will now be much more robust, although they were already
on a good UPS with generator backup. NOW, there is a larger generator, and
they've got A/B power across 2 UPS's (but... one generator). Also, all the
network hardware is DC powered from a pair of -48V battery systems, with
about 48 hour capacity (last time I was informed) and THOSE are also on the
generator. They are not scheduled for any additional maintenance that would
cause adverse impacts on operations in the foreseeable future.
Gerry (in Austin)
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Ryan Hickman <ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Pete,
>
> Internet2.edu and NLR.net have a very close relationship. Internet2.edu is
> a principal investor in NLR.net. The Kansas City exchange is likely jointly
> owned by the two companies.
>
> Sorry for not clarifying this in my last email. Your initial traceroute
> got lost in all of the follow-ups.
>
> I imagine we'll see this clear up as NLR.net's maintenance window comes to
> a close.
>
> -
> Ryan Hickman
> Chief Technology Officer
> AllisonHouse LLC
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Pete Pokrandt <poker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Makes sense on the nlr vs layer3.
>>
>> However, my initial issues between here and *.unidata.ucar.edu were
>> using
>> internet2-peer.net.wisc.edu and the packet loss began between there and
>> ae-0.10.rtr.kans.net.internet2.edu.
>>
>> At any rate, I'm seeing much better speeds to all, with much less, though
>> still non-zero packet loss.
>>
>> Now -
>> My traceroute
>> [v0.71]
>> sysadm
>> (0.0.0.0)
>> Fri Jan 4 15:40:38 2013
>>
>> Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit
>>
>> Packets Pings
>> Host
>> Loss% Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
>> 1. r-cssc-b280c-1-core-vlan-510-primary.net.wisc.edu
>> 0.0% 0.6 3.9 0.3 98.8 11.6
>> 2. r-cssc-b280c-9-core-vlan-2034.net.wisc.edu
>> 0.0% 0.3 0.7 0.3 15.7 1.7
>> 3. r-peer-xe-2-0-0-1627.net.wisc.edu
>> 0.0% 0.3 18.2 0.3 118.6 32.5
>> 4. internet2-peer.net.wisc.edu
>> 0.0% 19.3 30.4 5.4 201.7 36.4
>> 5. ae-0.10.rtr.kans.net.internet2.edu
>> 1.1% 16.4 47.2 16.4 248.1 46.4
>> 6. i2-frgp-kans.net.internet2.edu
>> 0.0% 27.0 27.2 26.9 38.2 1.5
>> 7. tcom-gs-1-vl873.ucar.edu
>> 0.0% 28.2 31.2 28.0 164.9 18.5
>> 8. mlra.ucar.edu
>> 0.0% 51.1 34.5 28.1 185.6 27.3
>> 9. ml-mr-c6-gs_mlr-tgvrf-net.ucar.edu
>> 0.0% 28.2 28.3 28.2 29.6 0.2
>> 10. 128.117.222.210
>>
>> vs earlier
>>
>>
>> My traceroute [v0.71]
>> sysadm (0.0.0.0) Fri Jan 4 13:48:12 2013
>> Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit
>> Packets Pings
>> Host Loss% Last
>> Avg Best Wrst StDev
>> 1. r-cssc-b280c-1-core-vlan-510-primary.net.wisc.edu 0.0% 2.1
>> 2.4 0.3 27.7 5.8
>> 2. r-cssc-b280c-9-core-vlan-2034.net.wisc.edu 0.0% 0.3
>> 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.1
>> 3. r-peer-xe-2-0-0-1627.net.wisc.edu 0.0% 0.3
>> 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.1
>> 4. internet2-peer.net.wisc.edu 0.0% 22.6
>> 15.4 5.3 133.5 24.6
>> 5. ae-0.10.rtr.kans.net.internet2.edu 0.0% 19.9
>> 29.1 16.3 156.3 32.0
>> 6. i2-frgp-kans.net.internet2.edu 17.1% 28.9
>> 29.8 28.9 56.8 4.8
>> 7. tcom-gs-1-vl873.ucar.edu 24.4% 30.5
>> 30.2 29.9 35.2 0.9
>> 8. mlra.ucar.edu 27.5% 30.0
>> 30.4 30.0 39.8 1.8
>> 9. ml-mr-c6-gs_mlr-tgvrf-net.ucar.edu 25.0% 30.1
>> 30.4 30.1 36.4 1.1
>> 10. 128.117.222.210 30.0% 30.0
>> 30.0 29.9 30.3 0.1
>>
>> On 01/04/2013 03:29 PM, Ryan Hickman wrote:
>>
>> NLR.net NOC has scheduled maintenance ongoing.
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=ZmFkZ2kxbGl0OWs5NXZrbW82YWxsbG5hYnMgY2VuaWMub3JnXzI0Ymh1ZHFndjdiNGhoaHNrczI2aWI0cnFnQGc&ctz=America/Los_Angeles
>>
>> https://www.google.com/calendar/render?eid=NXQ1MzVsN3VxZmg0aHVvaGxnNHE1cjg0NjAgY2VuaWMub3JnX2NsdXA0YmZxOXRjcm5tNWg0Z3FvbnE5aG9jQGc&ctz=America/Los_Angeles&pli=1&sf=true&output=xml
>>
>> Pete: Your request to colostate.edu request used NLR.net as a Peer, thus
>> the poor performance. Your request to csu.edu used Layer3 as a Peer,
>> thus the better-than-expected performance.
>>
>> Hope this clears things up.
>>
>> -
>> Ryan Hickman
>> Chief Technology Officer
>> AllisonHouse LLC
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pete Pokrandt - Systems Programmer
>> UW-Madison Dept of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences608-262-3086 -
>> poker@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ldm-users mailing list
> ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
>
--
Gerry Creager
NSSL/CIMMS
405.325.6731
