SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stephen wall who wrote (6110)10/3/2002 5:39:56 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio  Respond to of 46821
 
Hi Stephen. I've been following the UUnet fiasco since 8 a.m., and you're right: The Sevcik article popped into my mind, immediately. There was one particularly amusing post on NANOG earlier today that you might also find interesting. It is titled:

"Don't you love it when FC updates are better than NOC status reports?"

merit.edu

It was also interesting to see how FC found a way to monetize their activities:

"Due to popular demand...


DETAILS: For less than 8-cents per day per company, FC will send you rumors about your company, or any five companies (new: you get five companies with each order, but you can order as many times as you like, to track unlimited companies!) you wish, the INSTANT they're received, whether they are publicly posted to FC or not. This includes all future rumors that previously would NOT have been available unless you had a $75 subscription. (note: to see PAST rumors, you still need the $75 subscription, in which case you get unlimited searches about unlimited companies)

"You get to select five companies that you're interested in (yours, your competitors, your clients, your vendors, your investments...), and I'll monitor em for you. FC receives hundreds of rumors daily, and at only $12/month for five companies, this f___'n rules and there's no reason every company shouldn't subscribe right now.

"If you're already an FC Rumor Alerts user,click here to edit your profile."



To: stephen wall who wrote (6110)10/4/2002 4:53:01 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio  Respond to of 46821
 
Lycos Article: How and Why the Internet Broke

[FAC: During the late eighties, early nineties, there were a number of PSTN meltdowns caused by buggy SS7 software, the glue that tells the telephone network how to set up and tear down switched connections. That was an intelligent network problem. Yesterday's UUnet fiasco also stemmed from problems with software that is supposed to direct "calls", only in this case we're talking about routed packets. This is a dumb network problem. The dumb network is supposed to route around problems. Only, this one couldn't, because, in part, the carrier at the root of the problem was too big, i.e., in their failed state they were too much a part of what would have been the path to recovery. Hmm ...]

news.lycos.com

by Michelle Delio

Friday, October 04, 2002 12:35 p.m. EDT


The Internet was very confused on Thursday.

But cyberspace hasn't gone senile. Those massive e-mail delays, slow Internet connections and downed e-businesses were all caused by a software upgrade that went horribly wrong at WorldCom's UUNet division, a large provider of network communications.

The problem affected roughly 20 percent of UUNet's U.S. customers -- which translates to millions of users across the United States and around the world -- for most of Thursday, according to WorldCom spokeswoman Jennifer Baker.

The problem began around 8 a.m. EDT. Baker said in a statement that the company had fully restored service by 5:15 p.m. Thursday evening. Preliminary investigation by UUNet indicates the problems were caused by "a route table issue."

Sounds simple, but imagine an airport that's having an air traffic controller issue, and you'll have an idea of what happened at UUNet.

Route tables direct data from one major network to another or from one area of a network to another area.

UUNet is a vast, high-speed network. About half of the world's Internet traffic -- including about 70 percent of all e-mails sent within the United States and half of all e-mails sent in the world -- passes through UUNet. The backbone of the Internet is built from these large networks.

The Internet was designed to be fault tolerant, to route information around downed or clogged networks. But when the router tables that direct the data aren't accurate, "bedlam reigns on the network," according to Mike Sweeney, owner of the network consulting firm Packetattack.com.

According to networking experts, a "soft error" -- like a badly configured routing table -- is far worse than physical damage to equipment. Things appear to be working fine, at least for a while.

Luckily, in many cases a soft error is relatively easy to fix, since normally only one or two routers are upgraded.

"But in the case of UUNet, they changed the software on a lot of routers all at once, so any fault tolerance they had fell by the wayside as each router broke due to the bad software load or incorrect configuration," Sweeny said.

As the affected routers dropped offline yesterday, UUNet's response time got slower and slower to the point of failure.

"Other UUNet routers might have tried to pick up the load, but they would have quickly been overwhelmed by the volume of data, and they too would have slowed down," Sweeney said.

"It would be like a 10-lane freeway being blocked in both directions and yet all the traffic still trying to get from here to there using the side streets. It works for a short period, and then you end up with gridlock and nobody getting through."

Network experts were troubled at UUNet's choice to deploy a wide-scale upgrade without testing and retesting the configurations first.

"You have to test, test, test before you change configs," Mark Denham, a Toronto networking consultant, said. "And you really don't want to upgrade an entire huge system like UUNet all at once, if you can avoid doing so. It's insanely difficult to track down an error that could be hiding anywhere on a gigantic system."

"And you should always have an escape route handy in case everything goes to hell," Sweeney added. "A spare device, saved configurations, anything to get the network back and working quickly if the upgrade goes badly."

Some UUNet users said that their problems on Thursday went far deeper than slow e-mail and sluggish Internet connections.

Any Internet-based business hosted by WorldCom's service was hit hard. Not only were users unable to access the Internet, but at times their customers would have been unable to purchase goods, book travel and rental care reservations, or carry out other normal business activities.

WorldCom, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after a major corporate accounting scandal, claims that 60 percent of Fortune 1000 businesses use its UUNet network services.



To: stephen wall who wrote (6110)10/17/2002 9:37:25 PM
From: stephen wall  Respond to of 46821
 
IBM made a mistake here. They should have assigned the patent to MSFT, which, of course, would have been immediately integrated into Windows XP. With the advent of internet access installation on the back of passenger jet seats, MSFT would literally have you by the bladder if you didnt sign up for Microsoft Passport.

IBM flushes restroom lineup patent

By Troy Wolverton
Special to ZDNet News
October 14, 2002, 5:17 AM PT
URL: zdnet.com.com
IBM has quietly eliminated a patent it received on a method for determining who gets to use the bathroom next.

The computing giant received a patent for a "system and method for providing reservations for restroom use" in December. But the company later decided to renounce all of its patent claims after a petition was made against it, according to documents released this week by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

IBM spokesman Chris Andrews acknowledged that the company withdrew the patent.

"We dedicated that patent to the public so that we could continue focusing on our high-quality patent portfolio," Andrews said. He declined to give further explanation about why IBM decided to renounce it--or why it filed for the patent in the first place.

IBM's decision to renounce the patent came after the petition and after patent office Director James Rogan ordered a re-examination of the patent, said office spokeswoman Ruth Nyblod. She did not know whether the office would have cancelled the patent without IBM's request.

"IBM disclaimed it, so we cancelled the claims in the patent," she said.

The patent system has seen its reputation sullied in recent years. Critics have charged that too many patents don't pass the smell test because they cover "obvious" inventions that can't be patented under U.S. law. Earlier this year, for instance, the office was criticized for issuing a patent for a method of swinging sideways on a swing.

Technology patents, specifically those covering software and business methods, have drawn some of the most criticism and have been witness to some of the most high-profile legal contests. A patent suit against eBay, for example, could force it to change its successful auction system. Earlier this year, Amazon.com settled a long-running patent dispute against Barnes&Noble.com over Amazon's 1-Click checkout system.

Originally filed in August 2000, IBM's restroom reservation patent describes a system that would determine who is next in line for using the facilities on an airplane, passenger train or boat. As envisioned in the patent, the system would be run by a computer that would assign customers a number based on a first-come, first-served basis. The system would give customers an estimate of their waiting time to use the restroom and would notify them when the restroom was available and allow them to cancel their reservations.

"Because of the shortage of restrooms on board, it is often necessary for passengers (on an airplane) to stand for quite sometime in the aisles while queuing to use the restroom," IBM said in a description of the patent, No. 6,329,919. "Standing in the aisle of a moving aircraft creates safety hazard and inconveniences for both the passenger and other people on board. Likewise, a passenger may lose a great deal of his valuable time or miss a significant portion of an entertainment program because of waiting to use a restroom.

"A need therefore exists for an apparatus, system, and method for providing reservations for restroom use in places such as on an airplane, a passenger train or boat where safety concerns exist."

But the need for a patent on this method of restroom reservations was questioned soon after the patent was issued. In February, a petition was filed on it, and the patent office was asked to re-examine it, according to patent office records. Later that month, IBM decided to renounce the patents, according to the records.

Neither IBM's Andrews nor the patent office's Nyblod knew who issued the petition or why.

But Nyblod said that it's relatively rare for the patent office to re-examine patents it has issued. The office granted 187,882 patents in 2001 but received just 296 requests to re-examine individual patents, she said.

The patent office probably should have disposed of the patent application on the restroom reservation system instead of granting it, said Carl Oppedahl, a patent attorney with Dillon, Colo.-based Oppedahl & Larson.

"We have kept track of who gets to use the bathroom next for a long time in our society," Oppedahl said. "By disclaiming it, IBM now relieves the general public of wondering whether they would have been a target of this patent."

But just because the patent office granted this and other questionable patents doesn't mean the system is broken, he said. In fact, the patent office has taken steps to improve the way it issues patents in recent years, he said.

The office now generally publishes patent applications 18 months after they are filed. By publishing applications before they are granted patents, the office has opened up the process, allowing people to submit documentation that challenges claims made by a patent applicant.

Unfortunately, in this case, that process didn't go into effect until after IBM filed for its restroom patent, Oppedahl said.

"Maybe this patent wouldn't have been issued if the 18-month procedure had been in effect back when this was filed," he said.

For nine years running, IBM has been the leading recipient of patents from the U.S. patent office. The company received 3,411 patents last year. Its patent portfolio brought in $1.5 billion in revenue in 2001, Andrews said.

Andrews declined to say how many patents the company files for each year or the process the company uses to determine what it will patent. Andrews said he did not know how many patents the company renounces each year.