AS5511 is France Telecom's international backbone and any problem should be reported to noc@opentransit.net They have been quite responsive recently. Give it a try. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com> To: "Mathew Butler" <mbutler@tonbu.com> Cc: "'Roeland Meyer'" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>; "'Sean Donelan'" <sean@donelan.com>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 5:30 PM Subject: Re: I think I jinxed Sprint
...and in other news, speaking of Sprint, it appears that AS5511, a Sprintlink customer, became a transit provider for the netblock belonging
my ISP, CapuNet (an AboveNet customer), and probably many other AboveNet blocks, for about 15 minutes this morning...
core1.wdc>sh ip bgp 64.50.178.19 BGP routing table entry for 64.50.160.0/19, version 9657504 Paths: (2 available, best #1, advertised over IBGP) 1239 5511 6461 7380 144.228.242.51 from 144.228.242.51 Origin IGP, metric 55, localpref 50000, valid, external, best Community: 6993:1239 65000:10913 1239 5511 6461 7380, (received-only) 144.228.242.51 from 144.228.242.51 Origin IGP, metric 55, localpref 100, valid, external
[cwoodfield@cwoodfield src]$ traceroute 64.50.178.19 traceroute to cd-178-19.ra30.dc.capu.net (64.50.178.19): 1-30 hops, 38 byte packets 1 internap-wtcb-gw.e0.wdc.pnap.net (216.52.126.188) 1.05 ms 0.932 ms 2.76 ms 2 border2.s3-0.wtc-2.wdc.pnap.net (216.52.127.197) 5.34 ms 3.79 ms 5.59 ms 3 core1.fe0-0-fenet1.wdc.pnap.net (216.52.127.1) 5.33 ms 5.52 ms 9.60 ms 4 sl-gw2-rly-6-1-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.184.89) 5.14 ms 6.67 ms 5.66 ms 5 sl-bb21-rly-3-3.sprintlink.net (144.232.14.45) 8.17 ms 6.74 ms 5.59 ms 6 sl-bb20-pen-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.241) 8.16 ms 9.58 ms 8.43 ms 7 sl-bb20-stk-12-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.46) 67.9 ms 67.3 ms 70.9 ms 8 sl-gw28-stk-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.4.110) 67.8 ms 67.4 ms 68.1 ms 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 P6-0.STKBB2.Stockton.opentransit.net (193.251.129.58) * * 1242 ms (ttl=247!) 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16
-Chris Woodfield
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 02:44:00AM -0800, Mathew Butler wrote:
I thought that routers were supposed to send ICMP Source-Quench messages when they got congested?
Or is this something that the proponents of QoS didn't decide on?
-Mat
-----Original Message----- From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:58 AM To: 'Sean Donelan'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: I think I jinxed Sprint
The internet is a lot less forgiving wrt outages then the telco. The
telco
can have a circut outage, re-route to another circuit, and the customer never sees an availability gap. Also, a total outage, during reduced
times, and no customer ever misses a dial-tone because they aren't
to traffic trying to
get one, is not an outage in telco terms. The internet, on the other hand, may have similar issues, unless we start talking streaming video, streaming audio, and voice over IP. In those cases, packet losses can make a serious mess of things. Also, congestion is treated differently between the two systems. Telcos will actually return a fast-busy when a switch becomes congested. The internet simply starts dropping packets. You can actually hear the latter when using www.dialpad.com or MS-Netmeeting (both of which, I use extensively).
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B