Anyone from frontiernet.net on here?
I've been seeing really bad packet loss between PCCW and frontier, and so far haven't been able to make any traction with anyone on either side. I'm betting that the ??? is a peering point either in London or Ashburn. uk.bgp4.net (0.0.0.0) Tue Jul 9 20:39:53 2013 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields qu it Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 212.111.33.230 0.0% 43 1.7 0.7 0.5 1.8 0.3 2. 212.111.33.237 0.0% 43 2.3 1.9 1.1 22.7 3.3 3. 63.218.13.221 0.0% 43 2.3 15.6 1.1 230.3 45.9 4. ??? 5. 74.40.2.173 23.3% 43 177.9 150.3 147.8 177.9 7.0 6. 74.40.2.193 20.9% 43 149.9 149.9 149.1 161.2 2.1 7. 74.40.3.241 18.6% 43 149.6 152.4 149.1 193.2 8.8 8. 74.40.5.49 28.6% 43 148.1 150.8 147.8 192.1 9.9 9. 74.40.5.54 26.2% 43 148.3 150.5 147.9 218.7 12.6 10. 74.40.5.46 33.3% 42 149.5 154.0 149.2 212.8 14.0 11. 74.40.3.137 16.7% 42 147.4 148.7 146.9 163.0 4.1 12. 74.40.1.154 29.3% 42 148.2 153.6 147.7 206.7 14.2 13. 50.34.2.162 35.7% 42 150.2 150.4 149.8 156.3 1.2 14. 50.46.150.55 26.2% 42 150.7 151.0 150.5 152.0 0.4
There are some decent sized attacks taking place on gear near London, I believe. Could be a result of that? Sent from my Mobile Device. -------- Original message -------- From: Janet Sullivan <janets@nairial.net> Date: 07/09/2013 5:01 PM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Anyone from frontiernet.net on here? I've been seeing really bad packet loss between PCCW and frontier, and so far haven't been able to make any traction with anyone on either side. I'm betting that the ??? is a peering point either in London or Ashburn. uk.bgp4.net (0.0.0.0) Tue Jul 9 20:39:53 2013 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields qu it Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 212.111.33.230 0.0% 43 1.7 0.7 0.5 1.8 0.3 2. 212.111.33.237 0.0% 43 2.3 1.9 1.1 22.7 3.3 3. 63.218.13.221 0.0% 43 2.3 15.6 1.1 230.3 45.9 4. ??? 5. 74.40.2.173 23.3% 43 177.9 150.3 147.8 177.9 7.0 6. 74.40.2.193 20.9% 43 149.9 149.9 149.1 161.2 2.1 7. 74.40.3.241 18.6% 43 149.6 152.4 149.1 193.2 8.8 8. 74.40.5.49 28.6% 43 148.1 150.8 147.8 192.1 9.9 9. 74.40.5.54 26.2% 43 148.3 150.5 147.9 218.7 12.6 10. 74.40.5.46 33.3% 42 149.5 154.0 149.2 212.8 14.0 11. 74.40.3.137 16.7% 42 147.4 148.7 146.9 163.0 4.1 12. 74.40.1.154 29.3% 42 148.2 153.6 147.7 206.7 14.2 13. 50.34.2.162 35.7% 42 150.2 150.4 149.8 156.3 1.2 14. 50.46.150.55 26.2% 42 150.7 151.0 150.5 152.0 0.4
All it looks like I am seeing packet loss there across all of our peering sessions with them, so looks like a problem on their network. I'll ask our NOC to open up a ticket with them though just to see if we can find out what the issue is. Thanks, -Jeff On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
There are some decent sized attacks taking place on gear near London, I believe. Could be a result of that?
Sent from my Mobile Device.
-------- Original message -------- From: Janet Sullivan <janets@nairial.net> Date: 07/09/2013 5:01 PM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Anyone from frontiernet.net on here?
I've been seeing really bad packet loss between PCCW and frontier, and so far haven't been able to make any traction with anyone on either side. I'm betting that the ??? is a peering point either in London or Ashburn.
uk.bgp4.net (0.0.0.0) Tue Jul 9 20:39:53 2013 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields qu it Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 212.111.33.230 0.0% 43 1.7 0.7 0.5 1.8 0.3 2. 212.111.33.237 0.0% 43 2.3 1.9 1.1 22.7 3.3 3. 63.218.13.221 0.0% 43 2.3 15.6 1.1 230.3 45.9 4. ??? 5. 74.40.2.173 23.3% 43 177.9 150.3 147.8 177.9 7.0 6. 74.40.2.193 20.9% 43 149.9 149.9 149.1 161.2 2.1 7. 74.40.3.241 18.6% 43 149.6 152.4 149.1 193.2 8.8 8. 74.40.5.49 28.6% 43 148.1 150.8 147.8 192.1 9.9 9. 74.40.5.54 26.2% 43 148.3 150.5 147.9 218.7 12.6 10. 74.40.5.46 33.3% 42 149.5 154.0 149.2 212.8 14.0 11. 74.40.3.137 16.7% 42 147.4 148.7 146.9 163.0 4.1 12. 74.40.1.154 29.3% 42 148.2 153.6 147.7 206.7 14.2 13. 50.34.2.162 35.7% 42 150.2 150.4 149.8 156.3 1.2 14. 50.46.150.55 26.2% 42 150.7 151.0 150.5 152.0 0.4
Thank you, I really appreciate you looking into this. In return, I'll offer up that I'm a senior network engineer at Microsoft - if you ever have issues with AS8075, ping me, and I'll see what I can do. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Richmond [mailto:jeff.richmond@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:36 PM To: Warren Bailey Cc: Janet Sullivan; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Anyone from frontiernet.net on here? All it looks like I am seeing packet loss there across all of our peering sessions with them, so looks like a problem on their network. I'll ask our NOC to open up a ticket with them though just to see if we can find out what the issue is. Thanks, -Jeff On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
There are some decent sized attacks taking place on gear near London, I believe. Could be a result of that?
Sent from my Mobile Device.
-------- Original message -------- From: Janet Sullivan <janets@nairial.net> Date: 07/09/2013 5:01 PM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Anyone from frontiernet.net on here?
I've been seeing really bad packet loss between PCCW and frontier, and so far haven't been able to make any traction with anyone on either side. I'm betting that the ??? is a peering point either in London or Ashburn.
uk.bgp4.net (0.0.0.0) Tue Jul 9 20:39:53 2013 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields qu it Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 212.111.33.230 0.0% 43 1.7 0.7 0.5 1.8 0.3 2. 212.111.33.237 0.0% 43 2.3 1.9 1.1 22.7 3.3 3. 63.218.13.221 0.0% 43 2.3 15.6 1.1 230.3 45.9 4. ??? 5. 74.40.2.173 23.3% 43 177.9 150.3 147.8 177.9 7.0 6. 74.40.2.193 20.9% 43 149.9 149.9 149.1 161.2 2.1 7. 74.40.3.241 18.6% 43 149.6 152.4 149.1 193.2 8.8 8. 74.40.5.49 28.6% 43 148.1 150.8 147.8 192.1 9.9 9. 74.40.5.54 26.2% 43 148.3 150.5 147.9 218.7 12.6 10. 74.40.5.46 33.3% 42 149.5 154.0 149.2 212.8 14.0 11. 74.40.3.137 16.7% 42 147.4 148.7 146.9 163.0 4.1 12. 74.40.1.154 29.3% 42 148.2 153.6 147.7 206.7 14.2 13. 50.34.2.162 35.7% 42 150.2 150.4 149.8 156.3 1.2 14. 50.46.150.55 26.2% 42 150.7 151.0 150.5 152.0 0.4
participants (3)
-
Janet Sullivan -
Jeff Richmond -
Warren Bailey