- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: problems with 701
by Frank Scalzo 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

You're leaving 701. BR's are exit points toward a peer. If you go through a BR you are into a peering connection. That connection may be messed up, and sure that's their problem. But you'll get a lot further asking the right question is there a problem with 701-X peering in the south-east. -----Original Message----- From: Chad Oleary [mailto:col@pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:05 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: Bryan Heitman; Christopher L. Morrow Subject: Re: problems with 701 We're starting to see the same issues with uunet, again. Anyone else seeing this? Trying to reach Qwest... traceroute to 63.146.190.1 (63.146.190.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 esc-lp2-gw.e-solutionscorp.com (63.118.220.1) 1.167 ms 1.163 ms 1.142 ms 2 500.Serial2-10.GW1.TPA2.ALTER.NET (157.130.149.9) 1.097 ms 1.059 ms 1.044 ms 3 161.at-1-0-0.XL4.ATL1.ALTER.NET (152.63.81.190) 13.839 ms 14.108 ms 16.638 ms 4 0.so-3-1-0.XL2.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.238) 14.370 ms 14.587 ms 14.553 ms 5 POS7-0.BR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.82.193) 13.928 ms 14.099 ms 14.053 ms 6 * * * ... Thanks, --Chad On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:45:49 +0000 (GMT) > From: Christopher L. Morrow <chris(a)UU.NET> > To: Bryan Heitman <bryanh(a)communitech.net> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: problems with 701 > > > wow.. what are you trying to get to? This looks like it entered 701 on > hop 6 and exited at hop 8 to some other network which sttms to have some > delivery problems of its own. > > > > --Chris > (chris(a)uu.net) > ####################################################### > ## UUNET Technologies, Inc. ## > ## Manager ## > ## Customer Router Security Engineering Team ## > ## (W)703-886-3823 (C)703-338-7319 ## > ####################################################### > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Bryan Heitman wrote: > > > > > anyone know what is going on over at uu? > > > > seeing problems all over... > > > > > 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 216.79.187.254 > > > 4 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 172.25.57.5 > > > 5 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 205.152.37.184 > > > 6 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 500.POS2-0.GW11.ATL5.ALTER.NET > > > [157.130.76.97] > > > 7 10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 0.so-2-1-0.XL2.ATL5.ALTER.NET > > > [152.63.85.38] > > > 8 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms POS7-0.BR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET [152.63.82.193] > > > 9 * * * Request timed out. > > > 10 * * * Request timed out. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Bryan Heitman > > Interland, Inc. > > > > >

1 0

problems with 701
by Bryan Heitman 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

anyone know what is going on over at uu? seeing problems all over... > 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 216.79.187.254 > 4 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 172.25.57.5 > 5 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 205.152.37.184 > 6 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 500.POS2-0.GW11.ATL5.ALTER.NET > [157.130.76.97] > 7 10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 0.so-2-1-0.XL2.ATL5.ALTER.NET > [152.63.85.38] > 8 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms POS7-0.BR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET [152.63.82.193] > 9 * * * Request timed out. > 10 * * * Request timed out. Best regards, Bryan Heitman Interland, Inc.

4 3

msfc v msfc2
by G. Scott Granados 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Sorry for being a bit ot:). In short whats the difference between the Cisco msfc2 and msfc? I know the msfc2 is newer but what makes it better? A url compairing the two would be fine also. Thanks Scott

2 1

Cisco 4000 series switches
by Joes Jobs 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Please excuse the duplicate post (If there is one) Hello all, After being tasked to diagnose why a node is reporting a Half duplex connection I ran across an unusual observation. I've pretty much always assumed that what a switch reported as a status regarding the link of a node was the actual status of the line to be the case. However, when I checked the actual line state using a Fluke Net tool box I was surprised to discover a discrepancy. The scenario is this, the unit in question is a Cisco 4006 Catalyst. The port being connected to is set to Auto negotiate. Once the unit in question connects over a fairly poor RJ-45 connection using auto negotiate (no not beyond 100 meters, actually 280 feet) the switch reports: Port Name Status Vlan Level Duplex Speed Type ----- ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------ ------ ----- ------------ 3/2 connect 106 normal a-full a-100 10/100BaseTX However the line analyzer says duplex is half, but advertised full. When I set the node in question to Half Duplex, the switch reports half duplex as well. Port Name Status Vlan Level Duplex Speed Type ----- ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------ ------ ----- ------------ 3/2 connect 106 normal a-half a-100 10/100BaseTX Is this a common situation or just a mis-understanding of the column that makes up Duplex for the Cisco IOS? Or is it that The Cisco Switch truly is trying to do full duplex but the end node is only doing half. If so would/should I see line errors at some point under heavy load/traffic? And if not why would the line analyzer see the connection as half when the switch is reporting full? And btw, Firmware is at 5.5(11) Any thoughts appreciated. TIA -Joe

3 2

Re: What is a reasonable range for global BGP table size?
by Ross Chandler 17 Jul '02

17 Jul '02

>Hi, Rob. > >] How big is the global BGP table running these days? > >I'm seeing an average of around 115K prefixes. The delta isn't very >high. You can see some data here: > >http://www.cymru.com/BGP > >Thanks, >Rob. I like the delta graph. One nice thing to do is graph the number of paths on the same plot used for prefixes since both numbers are of the same order anyway. With mrtg, prefixes are "in" and paths "out" or vice versa. I'm seeing are 113k/30k. Regards Ross

2 1

Re: Teleglobe issues?
by Mike Tancsa 17 Jul '02

17 Jul '02

Dont know, but I was seeing lots-o-problems to 852 174 6453 15605 at the PSINet / Teleglobe link in New York. At the time I didnt know if it was a just a problem to Iceland (15605) or it started in Teleglobe. I didnt have time to take a close look then. Teleglobe has a looking glass at http://reporter.teleglobe.net/bin/lg that might shed some light on it. ---Mike At 12:26 PM 17/07/2002 -0400, Robert Viau wrote: >Does anyone know if there are any large routing issues or outages going on >at Teleglobe? I'm having trouble reaching various destinations and they >are all dying on their network. > >************************************** >Robert Viau - CCNA, CCDA >CTAC Specialist, Dedicated >WorldCom Canada Ltd. > > Local : 416.216.5101 > Toll Free : 1.888.886.3865 > EMail : rviau(a)wcom.ca >**************************************

1 0

Teleglobe issues?
by Robert Viau 17 Jul '02

17 Jul '02

Does anyone know if there are any large routing issues or outages going on at Teleglobe? I'm having trouble reaching various destinations and they are all dying on their network. ************************************** Robert Viau - CCNA, CCDA CTAC Specialist, Dedicated WorldCom Canada Ltd. Local : 416.216.5101 Toll Free : 1.888.886.3865 EMail : rviau(a)wcom.ca **************************************

1 0

earthlink and dsbl
by Sameer R. Manek 17 Jul '02

17 Jul '02

If anyone from earthlink's networking is around, I'd appreciate it if you guys could get this problem resolved. http://www.dsbl.org/listing.php?ip=207.217.120.62&submit=Retrieve+Informatio n One of the sites I send email to, uses this database for their filtering, and unfortunately, it's getting rejected Sameer ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sameer R. Manek Email: manek(a)ghur.net "What one has not experienced, one will never understand in print." --Isadora Duncan -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: problems with 701
by Alan Sato 17 Jul '02

17 Jul '02

Actually its that Verio wont accept networks longer than /21. I have a /22 there. Thats from Dorian according to this http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.html#PeerFilter That connection is not down. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:46 PM To: Alan Sato; nanog(a)merit.edu; E.B. Dreger Subject: Re: problems with 701 On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:02:22 -0700 "Alan Sato" <asato(a)altrio.net> wrote: > > Im having the same problem. I was told Verio was not accepting connections > from UUnet. > C:\>tracert www.webshots.com > > Tracing route to www.webshots.com [128.242.104.137] > over a maximum of 30 hops: >From me to focaldata through alternet seems normal multicasttech-1>trace 66.243.100.1 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 66-243-100-1.focaldata.net (66.243.100.1) 1 216.177.55.5 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec 2 500.Serial1-4.GW3.TCO1.ALTER.NET (157.130.48.237) [AS 701] 4 msec 0 msec 4 msec 3 117.at-0-0-0.XR2.TCO1.ALTER.NET (146.188.161.118) [AS 701] 4 msec 4 msec 12 msec 4 192.at-7-1-0.XL2.DCA8.ALTER.NET (146.188.162.241) [AS 701] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec 5 0.so-3-0-0.TL2.DCA8.ALTER.NET (152.63.144.29) [AS 701] 4 msec 0 msec 4 msec 6 0.so-3-0-0.TL2.LAX2.ALTER.NET (152.63.29.109) [AS 701] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 7 0.so-6-0-0.CL2.LAX4.ALTER.NET (146.188.136.150) [AS 701] 76 msec 72 msec 72 msec 8 192.ATM6-0.GW8.LAX4.ALTER.NET (152.63.114.101) [AS 701] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 9 focal-lax4-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.224.122) [AS 701] 76 msec 72 msec 76 msec 10 216-127-232-33.focaldata.net (216.127.232.33) [AS 19655] 72 msec 72 msec 72 msec 11 altrio-36.focaldata.net (216.127.233.36) [AS 19655] 76 msec 76 msec 76 msec 12 216-127-233-53.focaldata.net (216.127.233.53) [AS 19655] 76 msec 76 msec 72 msec Regards Marshall Eubanks > > 1 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 66-243-100-1.focaldata.net [66.243.100.1] > 2 16 ms <10 ms 15 ms altrio-52.focaldata.net [216.127.233.52] > 3 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 216-127-233-35.focaldata.net [216.127.233.35] > 4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 500.POS5-2.GW8.LAX4.ALTER.NET > [157.130.224.121] > > 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 106.at-0-1-0.CL2.LAX4.ALTER.NET > [152.63.114.102 > > 6 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 0.so-0-0-0.TL2.LAX2.ALTER.NET [152.63.2.74] > 7 16 ms 31 ms 31 ms 0.so-0-3-0.TL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET [152.63.116.33] > 8 15 ms 32 ms 31 ms 0.so-7-0-0.XL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET [152.63.54.9] > 9 16 ms 31 ms 31 ms POS7-0.BR6.SAC1.ALTER.NET [152.63.53.5] > 10 * * ^C > C:\> > Alan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 1:36 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: problems with 701 > > > > BH> anyone know what is going on over at uu? > BH> > BH> seeing problems all over... > BH> > BH> > 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 216.79.187.254 > BH> > 4 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 172.25.57.5 > BH> > 5 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 205.152.37.184 > BH> > 6 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 500.POS2-0.GW11.ATL5.ALTER.NET > BH> > [157.130.76.97] > BH> > 7 10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 0.so-2-1-0.XL2.ATL5.ALTER.NET > BH> > [152.63.85.38] > BH> > 8 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms POS7-0.BR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET > [152.63.82.193] > BH> > 9 * * * Request timed out. > BH> > 10 * * * Request timed out. > > Knowing source and destination would help. It appears that a > traceroute from some Bellsouth node dies out somewhere... what's > the destination? > > > Eddy > -- > Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division > Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building > Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national > Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) > From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> > To: blacklist(a)brics.com > Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. > > These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. > Do NOT send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to > be blocked. >

1 0

RE: problems with 701
by Alan Sato 17 Jul '02

17 Jul '02

Im having the same problem. I was told Verio was not accepting connections from UUnet. C:\>tracert www.webshots.com Tracing route to www.webshots.com [128.242.104.137] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 66-243-100-1.focaldata.net [66.243.100.1] 2 16 ms <10 ms 15 ms altrio-52.focaldata.net [216.127.233.52] 3 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 216-127-233-35.focaldata.net [216.127.233.35] 4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 500.POS5-2.GW8.LAX4.ALTER.NET [157.130.224.121] 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 106.at-0-1-0.CL2.LAX4.ALTER.NET [152.63.114.102 6 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 0.so-0-0-0.TL2.LAX2.ALTER.NET [152.63.2.74] 7 16 ms 31 ms 31 ms 0.so-0-3-0.TL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET [152.63.116.33] 8 15 ms 32 ms 31 ms 0.so-7-0-0.XL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET [152.63.54.9] 9 16 ms 31 ms 31 ms POS7-0.BR6.SAC1.ALTER.NET [152.63.53.5] 10 * * ^C C:\> Alan -----Original Message----- From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 1:36 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: problems with 701 BH> anyone know what is going on over at uu? BH> BH> seeing problems all over... BH> BH> > 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 216.79.187.254 BH> > 4 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 172.25.57.5 BH> > 5 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 205.152.37.184 BH> > 6 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 500.POS2-0.GW11.ATL5.ALTER.NET BH> > [157.130.76.97] BH> > 7 10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 0.so-2-1-0.XL2.ATL5.ALTER.NET BH> > [152.63.85.38] BH> > 8 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms POS7-0.BR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET [152.63.82.193] BH> > 9 * * * Request timed out. BH> > 10 * * * Request timed out. Knowing source and destination would help. It appears that a traceroute from some Bellsouth node dies out somewhere... what's the destination? Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> To: blacklist(a)brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.

2 1