January 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Kick em while they're down (was Re: Microsoft)
by Sean Donelan 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

It now appears the Microsoft saga has entered a new phase. While the earlier problems seemed to be releated to an internal Microsoft error, this afternoon it seems like someone (manyones) saw the opportunity to launch a lot of traffic at Microsoft. Of course, I can't tell if the congestion is just people clicking "Refresh" on their browsers or a DDOS. Microsoft made a brief appearance, but then was off the net again. Even if the original problem wasn't caused by script-kiddies, the points of congestion would indicate they are there now. Since the men in dark sunglasses usually start showing up at this point, I'll go do something different for a while.

1 0

RE: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems)
by Roeland Meyer 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

> From: Craig Partridge [mailto:craig@aland.bbn.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:33 PM > > In message <3A6F3FB8.FA526852(a)senie.com>, Daniel Senie writes: > > >Looking at traces to Microsoft's DNS servers (which are all hosted on > >the same ISP backbone, bad idea) shows 50% packet loss right now from > >ATT Broadband. It's possible the servers will actually answer DNS > >queries, but the protocols don't survive all that well in the face of > >50% or greater packet loss. > > Past evidence (like times in 1987 and 1988 when we ran the DNS over > links with 50% loss and higher, and experience on the > bottlenecked trans > Atlantic cable a few years back) suggests the DNS works pretty well > with high loss regimes. s/pretty/amazingly/

1 0

m$ blames icann
by Dan Hollis 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/24/microsoft.blackout.idg/index.h… Oh no, can't possibly be our own servers... -Dan

3 2

Re: CAIS DSL failure: lessons in how not to inform
by Howard C. Berkowitz 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

>mike(a)deneb.cortland.com wrote, >Afraid that you've missed an important point in your review of their service. >When you signed up for dsl service, you had a choice of dsl service or "Cais >dedicated" for mission critical applications. As a matter of fact, I have their business service. There is a significant price difference between SDSL and ADSL, at least with this provider. This is a SOHO router service, not single host. But I'm really trying to make a general operational point. > The dedicated nature of dsl >connections is an artefact of the technology and not something that >the isp can >afford to provide at the prices charged. You're paying the rough >equivalent of >dialup service and can't expect to get the service provided to dedicated >customers (T1, etc) who pay much more. You made the choice when you signed >up. Providing you with the information you want will detract from resources >available to solve the problem quickly. I'm quite aware of labor rates, and I'm not expecting personal notification. Changing a voice message every 4 hours or so, and/or sending email, is hardly what I call labor-intensive. Try the customer service lines at dial providers such as Mindspring/Earthlink. Status reports there on POP problems, as well as on support web pages. >You're benefiting from the technology >by getting more data for your buck. You can't realistically expect anything >which is remotely labor intensive to be provided. Or have your labor rates >declined dramatically recently? > > >Mine haven't The response I'm seeing is poor for a $19.95 per month dial provider, or a telco, or a discount airline. 24+ hour outages are hardly something I'd call minor.

1 0

Re: Microsoft spokesperson blames ICANN
by Scott Gifford 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> writes: > Microsoft appears to be blaming ICANN for the failure with Microft's > domain name servers (all located at the same place at Microsoft). > > Microsoft has yet to pin down the cause of the DNS error. "It can > be a system or human error, but somebody could also have done this > intentionally," De Jonge said. "We don't manage the DNS ourselves, > it is a system controlled by the Internet Corporation for Assigned > Names and Numbers (ICANN) with worldwide replicas." Saying that it was the fault of anybody besides Microsoft is simply not correct...a Perl script I use for diagnosing DNS problems reported last night one root-server down (c), one gtld server (j) down, and all but one of Microsoft's DNS servers down. Asking a.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking b.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking c.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Error searching for 'www.msn.com' at 'c.root-servers.net': query timed out Asking d.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking e.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking f.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking g.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking h.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking i.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking j.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking k.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking l.root-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking dns4.cp.msft.net about www.msn.com Error searching for 'www.msn.com' at 'dns4.cp.msft.net': query timed out Asking dns5.cp.msft.net about www.msn.com Error searching for 'www.msn.com' at 'dns5.cp.msft.net': query timed out Asking dns7.cp.msft.net about www.msn.com Error searching for 'www.msn.com' at 'dns7.cp.msft.net': query timed out Asking dns6.cp.msft.net about www.msn.com Asking e.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking f.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking j.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Error searching for 'www.msn.com' at 'j.gtld-servers.net': query timed out Asking k.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking a.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking m.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking g.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking c.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking i.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking b.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com Asking d.gtld-servers.net about www.msn.com 1 hosts [ 101/ 101 paths = 100.00% chance ] (dns6.cp.msft.net) reported: Sample path: a.root-servers.net -> dns6.cp.msft.net www.msn.com. 0 IN A 207.46.179.134 www.msn.com. 0 IN A 207.46.179.143 www.msn.com. 0 IN A 207.46.179.71 www.msn.com. 0 IN A 207.46.185.138 www.msn.com. 0 IN A 207.46.185.140 www.msn.com. 0 IN A 207.46.209.218 www.msn.com. 0 IN A 207.46.209.243 ------ScottG.

1 0

Name server problems? or did Microsoft forget to pay their bill again?
by Sean Donelan 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

It seems like a number of Microsoft related web sites have vanished. www.msnbc.com www.microsoft.com I've tried from both AT&T and Earthlink, and can't reach them. The name servers don't seem to be returning valid answers. If they are in your cache, it works. But after clearing the cache, nada. I noticed name server problems earlier this evening. Is this spreading?

9 8

Re: m$ blames icann
by Chris Yarnell 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

It'd take it with a grain of salt. It's an IDG article. > http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/24/microsoft.blackout.idg/index.h… > > Oh no, can't possibly be our own servers...

1 0

RE: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems)
by Chris Davis 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

If you need access to Microsoft sites, try adding 24.88.1.66 to your DNS search list in your TCP/IP properties. That's an AT&T Broadband DNS server. Their DNS servers are having fairly good luck with Microsoft sites. I can get http://search.support.microsoft.com/kb/c.asp?fr=0&SD=GN&LN=EN-US and http://lc7.law5.hotmail.passport.com/cgi-bin/login this way. Before I added 24.88.1.66 to my DNS search list, I couldn't get anything useful. -----Original Message----- From: Charles Sprickman [mailto:spork@inch.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:52 PM To: Dave McKay Cc: Sean Donelan; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Dave McKay wrote: > Hotmail has had no impact regarding this issue. Umm... On hitting hotmail.com, my browser immediately starts trying to fetch things from passport.com, which is unreachable. Technically, hotmail wasn't affected in that your redirect to passport.com was working. But seeing as the main index page brings me here: http://lc1.law13.hotmail.passport.com/cgi-bin/login and this domain is served by: DNS4.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.11 DNS5.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.12 I'd have to say most people were not able to access their hotmail account. I can support this with the tons of calls support got today about "hotmail being down". Damn that ICANN. Charles > -- > Dave McKay > dave(a)sneakerz.org > Microsoft Global Network Architect >

1 0

Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems)
by Charles Sprickman 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Dave McKay wrote: > Hotmail has had no impact regarding this issue. Umm... On hitting hotmail.com, my browser immediately starts trying to fetch things from passport.com, which is unreachable. Technically, hotmail wasn't affected in that your redirect to passport.com was working. But seeing as the main index page brings me here: http://lc1.law13.hotmail.passport.com/cgi-bin/login and this domain is served by: DNS4.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.11 DNS5.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.12 I'd have to say most people were not able to access their hotmail account. I can support this with the tons of calls support got today about "hotmail being down". Damn that ICANN. Charles > -- > Dave McKay > dave(a)sneakerz.org > Microsoft Global Network Architect >

2 1

Microsoft starts to limp back onto the Internet
by Sean Donelan 24 Jan '01

24 Jan '01

Microsoft seems to be resolving (pun) its domain name problems. Several names appear to be working again, at least intermittently. As best I can tell, the problem begain about 6:30pm last night. Although it probablly didn't start to effect a significant number of people for a few hours depending on how long the cache timeouts lasted. I still haven't heard back from msnnoc(a)microsoft.com (no phone number listed on puck.nether.net)

1 0