Anyone from sbcglobal out there? i'm seeing a routing loop. Please contact me off list thanks. sourceip: 69.16.137.66 tracert 75.58.215.133 Tracing route to adsl-75-58-215-133.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net [75.58.215.133] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.113.1 2 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms 69.16.137.66 3 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms e-2-21-1000m.core-04.phx2.puregig.net [69.16.128 .110] 4 2 ms 2 ms 5 ms v303.ar1.ph.hwng.net [69.16.128.137] 5 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms ve1011.r2.ph.hwng.net [69.16.190.161] 6 11 ms 20 ms 11 ms 2-1.r1.la.hwng.net [69.16.191.37] 7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms vl101.ar1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.29] 8 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ae0-60.cr1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.165] 9 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ex1-g12-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net [69.31.127.50] 10 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 11 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 12 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 13 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 14 14 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 15 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 16 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 17 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 18 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 19 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 20 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 21 11 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 22 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 23 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 24 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 25 11 ms 11 ms 16 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 26 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms 151.164.188.139 27 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 28 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 29 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138] 30 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 Trace complete.
Hey we got one too - we're having problems through Level 3. Hop IP Address Hostname ASN Network Name % Loss Min Latency Latency Avg Latency Max Latency Std Dev 1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 0 0.37 0.47 0.67 0.06 2 192.168.1.254 192.168.1.254 0 0.66 0.76 1.1 0.07 3 216.31.131.253 s1p20.colo1.lax.ca.us.tierzero.net 11509 TIERZERO-700LA 0 1.98 5.02 133.36 18.37 4 216.31.128.131 asbr2.bsap.lax1.ca.us.tierzero.net 11509 TIERZERO-700LA 0 2.24 6.88 186.29 25.73 5 4.71.142.93 ge-9-23.car2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net 3356 LVLT-ORG-4-8 0 2.4 11.92 183.51 36.78 6 4.68.20.69 ae-23-79.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net 3356 LVLT-ORG-4-8 0 2.79 7.21 70.62 14.11 7 4.68.110.114 sbc-level3-10ge.LosAngeles1.Level3.net 3356 LVLT-ORG-4-8 0 2.89 15.72 207.58 35.31 8 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 5.71 2.77 3.8 21.95 3.22 9 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 76 2.86 36.28 196.96 71.87 10 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 11.11 2.72 7.12 126.74 21.49 11 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 52 3.06 16.62 138.84 37.11 12 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 13.89 2.91 15.14 160.99 35.24 13 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 48.28 2.93 15 92.22 29.64 14 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 2.63 2.76 8.06 122.75 20.76 15 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 61.54 3.18 11.46 49.49 15.65 16 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 0 2.81 8.9 85.47 19.06 17 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 72 3 4 7.61 1.49 18 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 8.33 2.75 8.65 142.66 24.57 19 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 80 3.24 5.15 11.5 3.19 20 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 0 2.91 3.57 9.63 1.06 21 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 68 3 36.53 139.3 57.23 22 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 5.26 2.94 9.24 198.98 32.15 23 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 55.56 3.23 6.79 39.86 9.99 24 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 11.43 3.05 7.4 123.63 21.22 25 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 80 3.17 41.51 194.34 76.41 26 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 7.32 3 7.36 137.2 21.43 27 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 61.54 3.08 7.36 24.55 7.1 28 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 8.33 3.1 7.76 132.98 22.14 29 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 68 3.44 21.86 148.94 48.03 30 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 23.08 3.16 7.74 84.7 17.66 -Justin On 7/18/08 10:30 AM, "Logan Rawlins" <logan.rawlins@highwinds.com> wrote:
Anyone from sbcglobal out there? i'm seeing a routing loop. Please contact me off list thanks.
sourceip: 69.16.137.66
tracert 75.58.215.133
Tracing route to adsl-75-58-215-133.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net [75.58.215.133] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.113.1 2 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms 69.16.137.66 3 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms e-2-21-1000m.core-04.phx2.puregig.net [69.16.128 .110] 4 2 ms 2 ms 5 ms v303.ar1.ph.hwng.net [69.16.128.137] 5 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms ve1011.r2.ph.hwng.net [69.16.190.161] 6 11 ms 20 ms 11 ms 2-1.r1.la.hwng.net [69.16.191.37] 7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms vl101.ar1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.29] 8 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ae0-60.cr1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.165] 9 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ex1-g12-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net [69.31.127.50] 10 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 11 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
12 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 13 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
14 14 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 15 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
16 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 17 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
18 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 19 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
20 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 21 11 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
22 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 23 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
24 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 25 11 ms 11 ms 16 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
26 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms 151.164.188.139 27 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
28 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 29 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
30 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139
Trace complete.
Think this may be an ongoing issue... Last night out here in the bay area, myself and many other SBC/ATT users were experiencing random blackholed networks. Total PITA! -Mike On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Justin Ream <justin.ream@tierzero.com> wrote:
Hey we got one too - we're having problems through Level 3.
Hop IP Address Hostname ASN Network Name % Loss Min Latency Latency Avg Latency Max Latency Std Dev 1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 0 0.37 0.47 0.67 0.06 2 192.168.1.254 192.168.1.254 0 0.66 0.76 1.1 0.07 3 216.31.131.253 s1p20.colo1.lax.ca.us.tierzero.net 11509 TIERZERO-700LA 0 1.98 5.02 133.36 18.37 4 216.31.128.131 asbr2.bsap.lax1.ca.us.tierzero.net 11509 TIERZERO-700LA 0 2.24 6.88 186.29 25.73 5 4.71.142.93 ge-9-23.car2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net 3356 LVLT-ORG-4-8 0 2.4 11.92 183.51 36.78 6 4.68.20.69 ae-23-79.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net 3356 LVLT-ORG-4-8 0 2.79 7.21 70.62 14.11 7 4.68.110.114 sbc-level3-10ge.LosAngeles1.Level3.net 3356 LVLT-ORG-4-8 0 2.89 15.72 207.58 35.31 8 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 5.71 2.77 3.8 21.95 3.22 9 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 76 2.86 36.28 196.96 71.87 10 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 11.11 2.72 7.12 126.74 21.49 11 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 52 3.06 16.62 138.84 37.11 12 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 13.89 2.91 15.14 160.99 35.24 13 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 48.28 2.93 15 92.22 29.64 14 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 2.63 2.76 8.06 122.75 20.76 15 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 61.54 3.18 11.46 49.49 15.65 16 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 0 2.81 8.9 85.47 19.06 17 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 72 3 4 7.61 1.49 18 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 8.33 2.75 8.65 142.66 24.57 19 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 80 3.24 5.15 11.5 3.19 20 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 0 2.91 3.57 9.63 1.06 21 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 68 3 36.53 139.3 57.23 22 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 5.26 2.94 9.24 198.98 32.15 23 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 55.56 3.23 6.79 39.86 9.99 24 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 11.43 3.05 7.4 123.63 21.22 25 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 80 3.17 41.51 194.34 76.41 26 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 7.32 3 7.36 137.2 21.43 27 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 61.54 3.08 7.36 24.55 7.1 28 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 8.33 3.1 7.76 132.98 22.14 29 151.164.188.138 bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 68 3.44 21.86 148.94 48.03 30 151.164.191.226 ex2-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 7132 SBCIS-SIS80 23.08 3.16 7.74 84.7 17.66
-Justin
On 7/18/08 10:30 AM, "Logan Rawlins" <logan.rawlins@highwinds.com> wrote:
Anyone from sbcglobal out there? i'm seeing a routing loop. Please contact me off list thanks.
sourceip: 69.16.137.66
tracert 75.58.215.133
Tracing route to adsl-75-58-215-133.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net [75.58.215.133] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.113.1 2 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms 69.16.137.66 3 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms e-2-21-1000m.core-04.phx2.puregig.net [69.16.128 .110] 4 2 ms 2 ms 5 ms v303.ar1.ph.hwng.net [69.16.128.137] 5 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms ve1011.r2.ph.hwng.net [69.16.190.161] 6 11 ms 20 ms 11 ms 2-1.r1.la.hwng.net [69.16.191.37] 7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms vl101.ar1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.29] 8 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ae0-60.cr1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.165] 9 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ex1-g12-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net [69.31.127.50] 10 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 11 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
12 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 13 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
14 14 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 15 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
16 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 17 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
18 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 19 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
20 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 21 11 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
22 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 23 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
24 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 25 11 ms 11 ms 16 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
26 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms 151.164.188.139 27 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
28 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 29 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
30 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139
Trace complete.
What did your upstream transit supplier advise before you escalated this to the global audience at NANOG? This is the second time in 24hrs you have requested assistance here which could have been handled via other methods. -ren On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Logan Rawlins <logan.rawlins@highwinds.com> wrote:
Anyone from sbcglobal out there? i'm seeing a routing loop. Please contact me off list thanks.
sourceip: 69.16.137.66
tracert 75.58.215.133
Tracing route to adsl-75-58-215-133.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net [ 75.58.215.133] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.113.1 2 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms 69.16.137.66 3 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms e-2-21-1000m.core-04.phx2.puregig.net [69.16.128 .110] 4 2 ms 2 ms 5 ms v303.ar1.ph.hwng.net [69.16.128.137] 5 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms ve1011.r2.ph.hwng.net [69.16.190.161] 6 11 ms 20 ms 11 ms 2-1.r1.la.hwng.net [69.16.191.37] 7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms vl101.ar1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.29] 8 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ae0-60.cr1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.165] 9 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ex1-g12-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net [69.31.127.50] 10 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 11 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
12 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 13 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
14 14 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 15 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
16 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 17 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
18 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 19 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
20 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 21 11 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
22 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 23 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
24 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 25 11 ms 11 ms 16 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
26 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms 151.164.188.139 27 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
28 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 29 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
30 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139
Trace complete.
I think that's precisely the problem, that the issue could not have been handled "though other methods". I agree NANOG is not a replacement for NOCs, but what about when the NOCs are utterly useless and the issue is global in scope? Given the parties involved, I'd like to think that Logan tried to go through standard channels prior to posting. Please realize this is no slight against nLayer, but rather, "the new AT&T" and their concept of customer service. Paul On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ren Provo <ren.provo@gmail.com> wrote:
What did your upstream transit supplier advise before you escalated this to the global audience at NANOG? This is the second time in 24hrs you have requested assistance here which could have been handled via other methods. -ren
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Logan Rawlins <logan.rawlins@highwinds.com> wrote:
Anyone from sbcglobal out there? i'm seeing a routing loop. Please contact me off list thanks.
sourceip: 69.16.137.66
tracert 75.58.215.133
Tracing route to adsl-75-58-215-133.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net [ 75.58.215.133] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.113.1 2 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms 69.16.137.66 3 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms e-2-21-1000m.core-04.phx2.puregig.net [69.16.128 .110] 4 2 ms 2 ms 5 ms v303.ar1.ph.hwng.net [69.16.128.137] 5 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms ve1011.r2.ph.hwng.net [69.16.190.161] 6 11 ms 20 ms 11 ms 2-1.r1.la.hwng.net [69.16.191.37] 7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms vl101.ar1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.29] 8 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ae0-60.cr1.lax1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.127.165] 9 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ex1-g12-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net [69.31.127.50] 10 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 11 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
12 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 13 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
14 14 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 15 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
16 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 17 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
18 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 19 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
20 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 21 11 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
22 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 23 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
24 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 25 11 ms 11 ms 16 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
26 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms 151.164.188.139 27 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
28 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139 29 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms bb2-p14-0.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [151.164.188.138]
30 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 151.164.188.139
Trace complete.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Paul Wall <pauldotwall@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that's precisely the problem, that the issue could not have been handled "though other methods".
I think it should be clear to those posting here as a last ditch effort that they should certainly outline the steps they've already taken -- basically justifying their post to NANOG: "I tried X, waited Y, got Z, and now I'm here"
I agree NANOG is not a replacement for NOCs, but what about when the NOCs are utterly useless and the issue is global in scope?
that's definitely one of the reasons *I* think this mailing lists exists. infact I bet if I wasn't lazy I could find something to that effect in the charter or nanog.org site.
Given the parties involved, I'd like to think that Logan tried to go through standard channels prior to posting. Please realize this is no slight against nLayer, but rather, "the new AT&T" and their concept of customer service.
SBC/ATT/whatever peering ops was always my absolute favorite to work with back when I actually worked in a NOC. hopefully that hasn't changed much in the past year.
Paul
Aaron Glenn wrote:
I think it should be clear to those posting here as a last ditch effort that they should certainly outline the steps they've already taken -- basically justifying their post to NANOG: "I tried X, waited Y, got Z, and now I'm here"
To give an example: http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2008-June/001452.html I started with the customer care support line (in a concall with our client who was also their client). Then I moved onto various email contacts. Since my problem was partially DNS related, I tried the SOA mailto address. Since the other part of my problem was email related I tried postmaster@. I also tried to mail the ARIN whois contacts (but a bug in my client software prevented me from getting the record, and since the error appeared to be on the RPs side it looked to be a dead end) Then I went onto Jared's NOC list, as well as the INOC-DBA directory. By the time I resorted to posting here, I had exhausted every feasible contact method I could think of. And yes, that meant waiting days for resolution BEFORE posting here, and some additional days AFTER posting here before actually getting the help I needed. INOC-DBA is still a great idea, BTW, and would be even more useful if it were more widely used: http://www.pch.net/inoc-dba/ Also, to second another poster's point, most "routing loops" aren't really routing problems per-se, as much as localized link failures and the absence of naildown routes (we use the naildowns on all point-to-point circuits for this reason, since we don't run routing protocol on CPE).
Anyone from sbcglobal out there? i'm seeing a routing loop. Please contact me off list thanks.
What did your upstream transit supplier advise before you escalated this to the global audience at NANOG? This is the second time in 24hrs you have requested assistance here which could have been handled via other methods.
Sounds like he's used to used IRC, not mailing lists. There used to be an IRC channel where a lot of NANOG folks hung out. Anyone care to publicize the channel name and which IRC network carries it? --Michael Dillon
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Sounds like he's used to used IRC, not mailing lists. There used to be an IRC channel where a lot of NANOG folks hung out. Anyone care to publicize the channel name and which IRC network carries it?
--Michael Dillon
from the nanog mailing list... From: "Tim Brown" <> To: "Matthew McGehrin" <> Cc: <> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:17 PM Subject: Re: real-time DDoS help?
First and foremost, the #nanog IRC channel has absolutely nothing to do with the nanog mailing list, other than it shares some common personalities. Operational discussion is rarely experienced, the most often-experienced relevant question is "how do I configure BGP", and Secondly and perhaps most notably, IRC is in no way, shape, or form a protocol or communications method one would describe as resilient or operationally relevant. Neither are the instant messaging networks or Jabber servers. IRC does not meet the "needs" of operators. Describing these needs is a separate topic and probably not appropriate for this mailing list, even though you could describe the topic as operationally relevant.
Sounds like he's used to used IRC, not mailing lists. There used to be an IRC channel where a lot of NANOG folks hung out. Anyone care to publicize the channel name and which IRC network carries it?
from the nanog mailing list... Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:17 PM
First and foremost, the #nanog IRC channel has absolutely nothing to > do with the nanog mailing list, other than it shares some common > personalities.
Which IRC network? There are dozens of IRC networks and although you can find channels with the same name on different networks, they rarely share common personalities. In any case, I would expect that an IRC channel would contain mostly front-line NOC people, and except for the smaller networks where one person wears many hats, I would not expect to find such people hanging out on the NANOG list. Now, perhaps #nanog is not the channel I am thinking of, in which case I think it would be a good idea for someone with first hand experience to post the channel or channels which do cover this type of stuff. Same thing goes for Jabber channels or any other IM network. Is there a place where frontline network operators hang out, where it is not frowned upon to ask operational questions about events in progress? --Michael Dillon
On Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 08:44:31PM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Is there a place where frontline network operators hang out, where it is not frowned upon to ask operational questions about events in progress?
There are many. I suspect some are more public than others (but I don't have a list, so don't bother asking!). The most useful ones tend to be "by invite only", otherwise they just get full of people asking inane questions, and the useful people get bored and go elsewhere. Simon
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Anyone from sbcglobal out there? i'm seeing a routing
loop. Please
contact me off list thanks.
What did your upstream transit supplier advise before you escalated this to the global audience at NANOG? This is the second time in 24hrs you have requested assistance here which could have been handled via other methods.
Sounds like he's used to used IRC, not mailing lists. There used to be an IRC channel where a lot of NANOG folks hung out. Anyone care to publicize the channel name and which IRC network carries it?
--Michael Dillon
There's a #nanog on EFNet, and a #nanog on Freenode. I'd recommend the Freenode NANOG as EFNet is pretty well overrun with kiddies. Andrew
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 08:26:33PM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Sounds like he's used to used IRC, not mailing lists. There used to be an IRC channel where a lot of NANOG folks hung out. Anyone care to publicize the channel name and which IRC network carries it?
I was invited to it once, but do not have it handy now; it is by-invite-only, and it is *not* #nanog on any network. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)
participants (12)
-
Aaron Glenn -
Andrew D Kirch -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Joel Jaeggli -
Justin Ream -
Logan Rawlins -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Mike Lewinski -
Mike Lyon -
Paul Wall -
Ren Provo -
Simon Lockhart