Re: inauguration streams review

["Adam Greene" <maillist () webjogger net>]

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."