- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

OT: Ars: Cicso v Adekeye
by Jay Ashworth 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/a-pound-of-flesh-how-ciscos… -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

1 0

[NANOG-announce] Call for Communications Committee (CC) Volunteers
by Sylvie LaPerriere 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

NANOGers: The NANOG Communications Committee<http://www.nanog.org/governance/communications/>, as defined by the NANOG Bylaws, is a committee that is responsible for the NANOG mailing list, and other forms of electronic communication among the NANOG community as agreed with the Board of Directors. The Communications Committee is responsible for the administration and minimal moderation of the NANOG list, nanog(a)nanog.org, Also, the committee is responsible for the administration of other mailing lists and other forms of electronic communications among the NANOG community. The NANOG Board is seeking volunteers who are, or willing to become, members and are willing to serve on the Communications Committee. Please submit your name and interest statement to Board(a)nanog.org Thanks! Sylvie LaPerriere NANOG Chair - www.nanog.org _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Juniper MX960 Mqchip packet lenght error
by Ferretti Antonio 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

Hi all, After upgrading Juniper MX960 from 4x10Gbe DPCE to 16x10Gbe MPC, I see strange log messages like this: Fpc10 MQCHIP(0) LI Packet length error, pt entry 22 Seems to be only a "cosmetic" message, but today my team found some traffic dropped on interface on this card (before we only request check about log message). Has anyone the same problem? My software release is Junos 10.3R3.7. Thanks in advance. Antonio Ferretti Network Engineer Telecom Italia Sparkle Backbone IP&Data Operations Seabone 2nd Level Support Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000001@TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario.

2 1

Re: [outages] More notes
by Jay Ashworth 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Lassoff" <jof(a)thejof.com> > <tangential sidenote> > It's too bad that Junipers bugs aren't listed publicly. For clueful > network operations, having this information available to them could > have enabled them to properly weigh the risk of evaluating and > certifying versions of their operating systems. The reason it's called "gambling" is that sometimes, you lose. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

6 5

RE: NANOG Digest, Vol 46, Issue 15
by Steve Dispensa 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

Level 3 was down in KC, Chi, and San Jose (at least) for us between about 8:10 and 8:40, plus or minus. Brought down SureWest in KC too. -Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: nanog-request(a)nanog.org [mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org] > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 10:05 AM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 46, Issue 15 > > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog(a)nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-request(a)nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-owner(a)nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Time Warner Telecom problems (Jon Lewis) > 2. Re: Performance Issues - PTR Records (Leigh Porter) > 3. Re: Time Warner Telecom problems (Ray Van Dolson) > 4. General Internet Instability (Jared Mauch) > 5. Re: TATA problems? (Pierre-Yves Maunier) > 6. Re: TATA problems? (Leigh Porter) > 7. Re: Time Warner Telecom problems (Joe Greco) > 8. Re: TATA problems? (Kelly Kane) > 9. Re: Time Warner Telecom problems (Blake Hudson) > 10. RE: Time Warner Telecom problems (Thomas York) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:12:30 -0500 (EST) > From: Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)lewis.org> > To: Peter Pauly <ppauly(a)gmail.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Time Warner Telecom problems > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1111071005540.24418(a)soloth.lewis.org> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Peter Pauly wrote: > > > Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom .... we're > suffering > > from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so far... does > > anyone have any further information? > > > > http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warner-outage-hits-the-us > > I noticed just a little while ago that we're having a lot of DNS fail. > Initial findings were that several of the root-servers we were trying to > reach via our TWTelecom link were unreachable after 2 hops into TWT. > > 4 64-128-130-233.static.twtelecom.NET (64.128.130.233) 2.399 ms 2.298 > ms 2.338 ms > 5 mia2-pr1-xe-1-3-0-0.us.twtelecom.net (66.192.253.18) 11.571 ms > 11.552 ms 9.467 ms > 6 * * * > 7 * * * > 8 * * * > > For instance, a.root-servers.net is pingable from a rackspace server, but > not from our network (unless I shut off TWT, at which point it is, but > it's apparently not the same a.root-servers.net instance rackspace sees). > I assume this is one of the root-servers being anycast. > > Shutting off our BGP with TWT didn't appear to help (though the > root-servers became reachable)...so I assume there's more going on than > just TWT routing fail. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route > Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are > Atlantic Net | > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:29:30 +0000 > From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter(a)ukbroadband.com> > To: Bj?rn Mork <bjorn(a)mork.no> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Performance Issues - PTR Records > Message-ID: <53A4963F-4969-4A60-BF06-E690C7324863(a)ukbroadband.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > On 7 Nov 2011, at 14:03, "Bj?rn Mork" <bjorn(a)mork.no> wrote: > > > Leigh Porter <leigh.porter(a)ukbroadband.com> writes: > > > >> Indeed, there is no way I would allow that either. But really, > >> providing a reverse zone and forward zone to match is a case of five > >> minutes and a shell script or a DNS that as Steinar said, will > >> synthesise results. > >> > >> It's really not all that difficult.. > > > > No, not at all. It's just totally pointless. Any IPv6 address is just > > as pretty as a synthesized name. Maybe even prettier. Do you prefer > > "2001:db8:1::2" or "20010db8000100000000000000000002.rev.example.com"? > > > > If we're going to provide any reverse DNS for end users, then it is > > because we can create names which actually improves something. > > > > > > Bj?rn > > > > > > Yup it is pointless.. Mine are all ipadrress.domain which is of course, > pointless.. I suppose at least somebody would glean that perhaps its a > home user rather than a business or server on that address but that's all. > > With IPv6 arguably even more pointless as you say. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:28:18 -0800 > From: Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson(a)esri.com> > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Time Warner Telecom problems > Message-ID: <20111107152817.GA29715(a)esri.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 07:04:19AM -0800, Peter Pauly wrote: > > Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom .... we're > suffering > > from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so far... does > > anyone have any further information? > > > > http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warner-outage-hits-the-us > > FWIW, my home TWC connection dropped this morning for about 15 minutes > (Southern California around 6:30AM'ish). Still could ping the default > gateway, but packets weren't traversing much beyond that. > > Didn't investigate further, just headed into work. > > Ray > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:31:31 -0500 > From: Jared Mauch <jared(a)puck.nether.net> > To: Tom Hill <tom(a)ninjabadger.net> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: General Internet Instability > Message-ID: <B6567BC5-75E9-4E58-AFA9-5ADC0C2A7BDD(a)puck.nether.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Tom Hill wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:00 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote: > >> We seem to be having some problems with our tata links - first seen in > EU > >> about 45 minutes ago, now we're seeing problems in NA. I'm focused on > DNS, > >> so I'm seeing a lot of timeouts/servfails, but our networking folks are > >> talking about links dropping. > >> > >> Anyone else seeing oddness on the NA Internet right now? > >> > >> http://downrightnow.com/ confirms - something is up. > > > > There are widespread issues across the Internet; certain versions of > > Juniper firmware have core dumped after seeing a particular BGP 'UPDATE' > > message. > > > > (That's the running theory at least). > > > > It's affected multiple service providers, globally, not just those > > connected to TATA. > > > Pretty much any major BGP event will impact multiple providers. > > A threshold you should use to view the general instability (which I find > valuable, you may as well) is route views data. > > If you look at the BGP UPDATES archive sizes, you can see when something > happens, e.g.: > > http://archive.routeviews.org/bgpdata/2011.11/UPDATES/ > > Take a look at the size of the updates.20111107.1400.bz2 file and the 1415 > file. They are abnormally large compared to a normal period of time. > This shows there were a lot of updates out there being processed and a > reference to levels of instability. > > If you are not feeding route views or similar community projects, please > consider doing so. It helps paint the view for those doing analysis. > > - Jared > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 16:33:15 +0100 > From: Pierre-Yves Maunier <nanog(a)maunier.org> > To: Tom Hill <tom(a)ninjabadger.net> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: TATA problems? > Message-ID: > <CAEGdXrM+2rFXG2=d80kO_1ObtAv=24npNqZsLCTXUxeKS9q9yA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > 2011/11/7 Tom Hill <tom(a)ninjabadger.net> > > > On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:00 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote: > > > We seem to be having some problems with our tata links - first seen in > EU > > > about 45 minutes ago, now we're seeing problems in NA. I'm focused on > > DNS, > > > so I'm seeing a lot of timeouts/servfails, but our networking folks > are > > > talking about links dropping. > > > > > > Anyone else seeing oddness on the NA Internet right now? > > > > > > http://downrightnow.com/ confirms - something is up. > > > > There are widespread issues across the Internet; certain versions of > > Juniper firmware have core dumped after seeing a particular BGP 'UPDATE' > > message. > > > > (That's the running theory at least). > > > > It's affected multiple service providers, globally, not just those > > connected to TATA. > > > > Tom > > > > > > > On our side all our 10.3R2.11 core dumped which made all our interfaces > flapped. > I've been told 10.4R1.9 is affected too. > > -- > Pierre-Yves Maunier > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:45:18 +0000 > From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter(a)ukbroadband.com> > To: Pierre-Yves Maunier <nanog(a)maunier.org> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: TATA problems? > Message-ID: <7994AF08-0622-434F-974F-FC9269469176(a)ukbroadband.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > My 10.4r1.9 boxes died also but I saw interfaces go down whilst bgpd > seemed stable. > > -- > Leigh > > > On 7 Nov 2011, at 15:34, "Pierre-Yves Maunier" <nanog(a)maunier.org> wrote: > > > 2011/11/7 Tom Hill <tom(a)ninjabadger.net> > > > >> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:00 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote: > >>> We seem to be having some problems with our tata links - first seen in > EU > >>> about 45 minutes ago, now we're seeing problems in NA. I'm focused on > >> DNS, > >>> so I'm seeing a lot of timeouts/servfails, but our networking folks > are > >>> talking about links dropping. > >>> > >>> Anyone else seeing oddness on the NA Internet right now? > >>> > >>> http://downrightnow.com/ confirms - something is up. > >> > >> There are widespread issues across the Internet; certain versions of > >> Juniper firmware have core dumped after seeing a particular BGP > 'UPDATE' > >> message. > >> > >> (That's the running theory at least). > >> > >> It's affected multiple service providers, globally, not just those > >> connected to TATA. > >> > >> Tom > >> > >> > >> > > On our side all our 10.3R2.11 core dumped which made all our interfaces > > flapped. > > I've been told 10.4R1.9 is affected too. > > > > -- > > Pierre-Yves Maunier > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 09:54:25 -0600 (CST) > From: Joe Greco <jgreco(a)ns.sol.net> > To: ppauly(a)gmail.com (Peter Pauly) > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Time Warner Telecom problems > Message-ID: <201111071554.pA7FsPHb045359(a)aurora.sol.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom .... we're > suffering > > from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so far... does > > anyone have any further information? > > > > http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warner-outage-hits-the-us > > Actually, it looks to me like they mean "Time Warner", because that's > what they said. > > The company once known as "Time Warner Telecom" has always been a > different entity, and hasn't been known as that in some time, now > being called "twtelecom." Much of that company is what was once > known as inc.net, a Milwaukee area provider of the '90's. > > Time Warner Cable appears to have experienced an implosion this morning, > being out of service for about 11 minutes. During that time, packets > originating here in Milwaukee quickly died in Chicago; > > 1 76.46.192.1 8.320 ms 9.900 ms 7.974 ms > 2 24.160.230.32 7.967 ms 5.975 ms 8.479 ms > 3 24.160.229.132 8.471 ms 7.969 ms 10.991 ms > 4 24.160.229.193 9.972 ms 9.973 ms > 24.160.229.197 9.985 ms > 5 * * * > 6 * * * > > while packets destined for RR all seemed to be headed out to SJC, from > what I can tell. > > ... JG > -- > Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net > "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] > then I > won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail > spam(CNN) > With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many > apples. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:55:33 -0800 > From: Kelly Kane <kelly(a)hawknetworks.com> > To: Tim Vollebregt <tim(a)interworx.nl> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: TATA problems? > Message-ID: > <CAKfXD0zrH9TJkN=7doGe1uAq8zxVszyvtJYfLLTbiC6+UMy4ww(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 07:06, Tim Vollebregt <tim(a)interworx.nl> wrote: > > > > On #IX there are rumours about Junos version 10.3R2.11 being core dumped > and > > rebooted, which makes sense. > > Perhaps related to Juniper PSN-2011-08-327? Did the whole router > reboot, or just the service module? > > We saw one TATA session, and one Abovenet session flap. > > Kelly > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:02:13 -0600 > From: Blake Hudson <blake(a)ispn.net> > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Time Warner Telecom problems > Message-ID: <4EB80105.8060703(a)ispn.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > > Joe Greco wrote the following on 11/7/2011 9:54 AM: > >> Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom .... we're > suffering > >> from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so far... does > >> anyone have any further information? > >> > >> http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warner-outage-hits-the-us > > Actually, it looks to me like they mean "Time Warner", because that's > > what they said. > > > > The company once known as "Time Warner Telecom" has always been a > > different entity, and hasn't been known as that in some time, now > > being called "twtelecom." Much of that company is what was once > > known as inc.net, a Milwaukee area provider of the '90's. > > > > Time Warner Cable appears to have experienced an implosion this morning, > > being out of service for about 11 minutes. During that time, packets > > originating here in Milwaukee quickly died in Chicago; > > Using the looking glass from TWtelecom, we saw 30-60min outage (roughly > 8:30AM to 9:30AM CST) between the Kansas City location and our own > server room in Kansas City. Other TWtelecom locations appeared to be > unaffected. Perhaps TWtelecom is served by Timewarner or shares > equipment in KC. Either way, none of our KC customers who were served > via TWtelecom or Timewarner were able to reach us. Packets would hit > Level 3 Communications and die in either direction at the border between > L3 and TW. FWIW, TW was showing a good BGP route to us and vise versa. > http://lglass.twtelecom.net/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:04:59 -0500 > From: "Thomas York" <straterra(a)fuhell.com> > To: "'Blake Hudson'" <blake(a)ispn.net>, <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: RE: Time Warner Telecom problems > Message-ID: <c23401cc9d67$046baea0$0d430be0$(a)fuhell.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > FWIW, We saw issues here in Indianapolis between TWTC and L3 up until a > few minutes ago. > > --Thomas York > > -----Original Message----- > From: Blake Hudson [mailto:blake@ispn.net] > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 11:02 AM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Time Warner Telecom problems > > > Joe Greco wrote the following on 11/7/2011 9:54 AM: > >> Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom .... we're > >> suffering from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so > >> far... does anyone have any further information? > >> > >> http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warner-outage-hits-the-us > > Actually, it looks to me like they mean "Time Warner", because that's > > what they said. > > > > The company once known as "Time Warner Telecom" has always been a > > different entity, and hasn't been known as that in some time, now > > being called "twtelecom." Much of that company is what was once known > > as inc.net, a Milwaukee area provider of the '90's. > > > > Time Warner Cable appears to have experienced an implosion this > > morning, being out of service for about 11 minutes. During that time, > > packets originating here in Milwaukee quickly died in Chicago; > > Using the looking glass from TWtelecom, we saw 30-60min outage (roughly > 8:30AM to 9:30AM CST) between the Kansas City location and our own server > room in Kansas City. Other TWtelecom locations appeared to be unaffected. > Perhaps TWtelecom is served by Timewarner or shares equipment in KC. > Either way, none of our KC customers who were served via TWtelecom or > Timewarner were able to reach us. Packets would hit Level 3 Communications > and die in either direction at the border between > L3 and TW. FWIW, TW was showing a good BGP route to us and vise versa. > http://lglass.twtelecom.net/ > > > > > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 46, Issue 15 > *************************************

2 1

R: Juniper MX960 Mqchip packet lenght error
by Ferretti Antonio 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

Thx David, PR587266 seems to be related to "maximum-packet-lenght" command that is not present in my config. Biggest problem in this case are dropped packet on interface: Physical interface: xe-10/0/1, Enabled, Physical link is Up Interface index: 363, SNMP ifIndex: 645, Generation: 483 Description: No Description Link-level type: Ethernet, MTU: 1514, LAN-PHY mode, Speed: 10Gbps, Loopback: None, Source filtering: Disabled, Flow control: Enabled Device flags : Present Running Interface flags: SNMP-Traps Internal: 0x4000 Link flags : None CoS queues : 8 supported, 8 maximum usable queues Hold-times : Up 0 ms, Down 0 ms Current address: 00:24:dc:49:be:73, Hardware address: 00:24:dc:49:be:73 Last flapped : 2011-10-27 03:11:07 UTC (1w5d 12:18 ago) Statistics last cleared: 2011-11-08 13:15:03 UTC (02:14:38 ago) Traffic statistics: Input bytes : 4674308593808 5182909688 bps Output bytes : 6092283580895 6656998280 bps Input packets: 8393093736 1149495 pps Output packets: 6971170539 941600 pps IPv6 transit statistics: Input bytes : 23569859 Output bytes : 0 Input packets: 197870 Output packets: 0 Dropped traffic statistics due to STP State: Input bytes : 0 Output bytes : 0 Input packets: 0 Output packets: 0 Input errors: Errors: 0, Drops: 0, Framing errors: 0, Runts: 0, Policed discards: 0, L3 incompletes: 0, L2 channel errors: 0, L2 mismatch timeouts: 0, FIFO errors: 0, Resource errors: 0 Output errors: Carrier transitions: 0, Errors: 0, Drops: 0, Collisions: 0, Aged packets: 0, FIFO errors: 0, HS link CRC errors: 0, MTU errors: 0, Resource errors: 0 Egress queues: 8 supported, 8 in use Queue counters: Queued packets Transmitted packets Dropped packets 0 be 6973872756 6887958719 85914037 1 ef 25695717 25695717 0 2 ef1 2062122 2062122 0 3 ef2 21430966 21430966 0 4 af 2605818 2605818 0 5 af1 1577987 1577987 0 6 nc 5928647 5928647 0 7 nc1 24705296 24705296 0 I'm wondering if is something related to CoS that is managed in different way from the two type of linecard. Regards Antonio Ferretti Network Engineer Telecom Italia Sparkle TIS.AD.NDO.O Backbone IP&Data Operations Seabone 2nd Level Support Via di Macchia Palocco, 223 00125 Roma, Italia -----Messaggio originale----- Da: david.roy(a)orange.com [mailto:david.roy@orange.com] Inviato: martedì 8 novembre 2011 16.13 A: Ferretti Antonio; nanog(a)nanog.org Oggetto: RE: Juniper MX960 Mqchip packet lenght error Hi, See the PR587266. Maybe you have Syslog/log statement in a FW filter term. Regards David David Roy Orange - IP Domestic Backbone - TAC Tel. +33(0)299876472 Mob. +33(0)685522213 Email. david.roy(a)orange.com Skype : davidroy.35 JNCIE-SP #703 Guest Haiku : IS-IS screams, BGP peers are flapping: I want my mommy! -----Message d'origine----- De : Ferretti Antonio [mailto:antonio.ferretti@telecomitalia.it] Envoyé : mardi 8 novembre 2011 15:35 À : nanog(a)nanog.org Objet : Juniper MX960 Mqchip packet lenght error Hi all, After upgrading Juniper MX960 from 4x10Gbe DPCE to 16x10Gbe MPC, I see strange log messages like this: Fpc10 MQCHIP(0) LI Packet length error, pt entry 22 Seems to be only a "cosmetic" message, but today my team found some traffic dropped on interface on this card (before we only request check about log message). Has anyone the same problem? My software release is Junos 10.3R3.7. Thanks in advance. Antonio Ferretti Network Engineer Telecom Italia Sparkle Backbone IP&Data Operations Seabone 2nd Level Support Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000001@TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. ******************************************************************************** IMPORTANT.Les informations contenues dans ce message electronique y compris les fichiers attaches sont strictement confidentielles et peuvent etre protegees par la loi. Ce message electronique est destine exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) mentionne(s) ci-dessus. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur ou s il ne vous est pas destine, veuillez immediatement le signaler a l expediteur et effacer ce message et tous les fichiers eventuellement attaches. Toute lecture, exploitation ou transmission des informations contenues dans ce message est interdite. Tout message electronique est susceptible d alteration. A ce titre, le Groupe France Telecom decline toute responsabilite notamment s il a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. De meme, il appartient au destinataire de s assurer de l absence de tout virus. IMPORTANT.This e-mail message and any attachments are strictly confidential and may be protected by law. This message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message. Any unauthorized view, usage or disclosure ofthis message is prohibited. Since e-mail messages may not be reliable, France Telecom Group shall not be liable for any message if modified, changed or falsified. Additionally the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. ******************************************************************************** Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

1 0

XO blocking individual IP's
by clayton＠haydel.org 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

I'm hoping someone has had the same experiences, and is further toward a resolution on this than I am. About 6 months ago, we noticed that XO was blackholing one specific IP out of a /24. Traces to that IP stopped on XO's network, traces to anything else out of the block went through fine. XO finally admitted that they had a new security system that identifies suspicious traffic and automatically blocks the IP for 30 minutes. We had to get the IP in question "whitelisted" by their security guys. The traffic was all legit, it was just on a high port # that they considered suspicious. There have several more cases like this, and XO has not been forthcoming with information. We're either looking to be exempted from this filtering or at least get a detailed description of how the system works. I'm not sure how they think this is acceptable from a major transit provider. Anybody else had similar problems? Clayton Haydel

5 6

IPv6World:Asia - Deployment Experience with IPv6
by Joly MacFie 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

For any of you who are working late, we are just about to start (2am-4am EST) a live webcast of a "Deployment Experience with IPv6" event from Hong Kong. Fred Baker is the keynote speaker. Webcast: http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters/ More info: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2630 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

Re: [outages] Time Warner Cable outage
by Jay Ashworth 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dustin Rhodes" <DRhodes(a)fiberutilities.com> > Sounded like someone was broadcasting a BGP route with an invalid > attribute and caused BGP session restarts or Core Dumps/crashes on any > Juniper router running version 10.4 Well, it *is* getting on towards Christmas... Cheers, -- jr '*really*, Juniper?' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

1 0

RE: Cell-based OOB management devices
by ebarrios＠gobarrios.com 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

1 0