Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: inauguration streams review
From: "Adam Greene" <maillist () webjogger net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:08:30 -0500

Hi, quick question ...

Most people here said they saw most of the inauguration traffic on TCP1935 to Limelight and UDP8247 to CNN. However, we were seeing it simply as "http" traffic (i.e. port 80), which made it very difficult to manage. Our inbound bandwidth was effectively maxed out for about 6 hours.

I wonder what the discrepancy is between my experience and yours ... maybe the glass through which I am peering? We're analyzing / controlling WAN traffic with Exindas.

Thanks,
Adam



----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Carrozzo" <jack () crepinc com>
To: "Paul Stewart" <pstewart () nexicomgroup net>
Cc: <nanog () nanog org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: inauguration streams review


COWs are more or less full sites - so standard N concurrent voice
calls per carrier (check out the CDMA standard if you're really
interested), times the number of carriers. They can do 850+PCS all
carrier if configured that way. If we can grab fiber from a nearby
building that's best (hence why this takes so long to plan), however a
lot of time we rely on OC3 microwave backhaul. I wasn't involved with
the DC guys as I'm in Boston so I don't know specifics of this event.

Re: security, I don't know since I wasn't involved though since all
the planning started so far back I doubt there was much issue.

-Jack Carrozzo

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Paul Stewart <pstewart () nexicomgroup net>
wrote:
Just curious on that note with COW .. did you have much security related
problems setting up stuff nearby?

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.lyon () gmail com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:52 PM
To: Jack Carrozzo
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: inauguration streams review

How many simultaneous connections can each COW handle? What kind of
backhaul
connections do they have?

-Mike


On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jack Carrozzo <jack () crepinc com>
wrote:

I can't comment on revenue-generation, though access as a whole was
quite
high.

We hardly had any voice IAs (Ineffective Attempts, or 'Busy'
messages). Since data can be queued, the only thing that would cause
data IAs are bad RF conditions - we had a TON of 'cell on wheels' in
the area for the event so we had enough carrier space to cover it.

In-network data response times were hardly affected, with switch loads
well below 50%. In-network SMS were still getting to their
destinations in under 5 seconds for the most part.... I don't have any
numbers on MMS or mobile IP data at the moment, though I would have
heard if something horrible had happened.

I'm told that the out-of-network SMS queue was piling pretty high at
one point, to delivery times up to an hour, though they all still got
there. We can't control other network's switches obviously.

This isn't trying to sound like an advertisement - *I'm* not affected
either way if people sign up with us as I'm not in sales, however from
my point of view it looks like we had the most solid network... Our
guys were planning and setting things up since June.

Cheers,

-Jack Carrozzo

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Peter Beckman <beckman () angryox com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
>
>> Cell networks held up reasonably well for voice, though SMS and MMS
>> delivery times approached an hour during the event. Switch load in
>> almost the entire US was higher than midnight on New Years (which
is
>> generally the highest load of the year).
>>
>> Our network has been preparing since June, and I assume likewise
for
>> others.
>
>  Unfortunately for me Sprint did not seem to prepare or have enough
>  capacity for Voice, SMS or Data access.  No live Twitter blogging!
>
>  While I was able to get a few (maybe 5 between 10am and 2pm) text
messages
>  out while standing near the Washington Monument, calls and data
were an
>  impossibility, and SMS only seemed to have capacity available
during
lulls
>  in the Inaugural activity.
>
>  It was disappointing as a customer -- I'm sure that, had the
capacity
been
>  there, the revenue from that single event would have made a
significant
>  impact on any of the carrier's revenue, at least for the month.
>
>> -Jack Carrozzo
>> (Engineer at $large cell company whose policy doesn't allow me to
specify)
>
>  (Google spills the beans!)  I'm curious if you can find out -- did
the
>  record traffic positively affect revenue for that period compared
to
last
>  year at the same time, or even last week on the same day?
>
>  And from a more technical standpoint, did your $large cell company
put
up
>  temporary towers?  I'm curious as to how your company added
capacity to
>  handle the event, as well as how many "Network Busy" messages
customers
>  got, if any.  I know I got more of those messages than I did
successful
>  communications.
>
> Beckman
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Peter Beckman
Internet
Guy
> beckman () angryox com
http://www.angryox.com/
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>





----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged
material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender
immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments,
without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."







  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]