Anyone seeing any issues with level3? We can connect to every other IP in our Class C. When tracerouting to individual IP's, (x.x.x.50/51/52/53) we get a drop at ge-4-16.car2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.59.146.53] for 50, but 51 is fine, drop for 52, 53 is fine. Thanks.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:12:12PM +0000, Network Operations wrote:
Anyone seeing any issues with level3? We can connect to every other IP in our Class C. When tracerouting to individual IP's, (x.x.x.50/51/52/53) we get a drop at ge-4-16.car2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.59.146.53] for 50, but 51 is fine, drop for 52, 53 is fine.
Sounds like a classic problem with a member of a bundle (like a link-agg or ECMP) breaking. Level3 tends not to do anything in bundles of 2, so you might want to look elsewhere, like with your own connections to them, possibly on the reverse path. Now, please go find a blunt object and hit yourself in the head as punishment for using the words "Class C" in 2013 in a non-historic or ironic context. Hard. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message -------- From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> Date: 01/15/2013 9:19 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Network Operations <NetworkOperations@etsms.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Issues with level3? On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:12:12PM +0000, Network Operations wrote:
Anyone seeing any issues with level3? We can connect to every other IP in our Class C. When tracerouting to individual IP's, (x.x.x.50/51/52/53) we get a drop at ge-4-16.car2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.59.146.53] for 50, but 51 is fine, drop for 52, 53 is fine.
Sounds like a classic problem with a member of a bundle (like a link-agg or ECMP) breaking. Level3 tends not to do anything in bundles of 2, so you might want to look elsewhere, like with your own connections to them, possibly on the reverse path. Now, please go find a blunt object and hit yourself in the head as punishment for using the words "Class C" in 2013 in a non-historic or ironic context. Hard. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol
More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than "slash twenty four" :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066
I tend to enjoy being rebellious... Lol
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message -------- From: Bruce H McIntosh <bhm@ufl.edu> Date: 01/15/2013 9:32 AM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Issues with level3? On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol
More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than "slash twenty four" :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066
On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than "slash twenty four" :-)
You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C0000000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol
More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than "slash twenty four" :-)
You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C0000000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway.
i only call class-c's class-c's when they come from the space GE uses.
----- Original Message -----
On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than "slash twenty four" :-)
You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C0000000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway.
But, class B is not B0000000 and A is not A0000000, so is that actually true, or just a coincidence? Class C was actually 192.0.0.0-223.255.255.255 (192.0.0.0/3) -Randy
Randy beat me.. :/ Class C 192. 0. 0. 0 = 11000000.00000000.00000000.00000000 223.255.255.255 = 11011111.11111111.11111111.11111111 110nnnnn.nnnnnnnn.nnnnnnnn.HHHHHHHH On 1/15/13 10:04 AM, "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen@network1.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than "slash twenty four" :-)
You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C0000000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway.
But, class B is not B0000000 and A is not A0000000, so is that actually true, or just a coincidence?
Class C was actually 192.0.0.0-223.255.255.255 (192.0.0.0/3)
-Randy
On 1/15/13 10:04 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than "slash twenty four" :-)
You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C0000000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway. But, class B is not B0000000 and A is not A0000000, so is that actually true, or just a coincidence? yeah /3 not /8
class-a is the first half of the address space class-b is the next 1/4 ...
Class C was actually 192.0.0.0-223.255.255.255 (192.0.0.0/3)
-Randy
joel jaeggli wrote:
On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than "slash twenty four" :-)
You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C0000000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway.
I only ever say class-c sized. And only when trying to communicate with the slash-whats. Joe
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:52:24 -0500, Joe Maimon said:
I only ever say class-c sized. And only when trying to communicate with the slash-whats.
Your mistake there is trying to communicate with people who have been in networking long enough to understand "class-c", but *still* haven't educated themselves out of the slash-what stage. Such people deserve to be shunned.
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:52:24 -0500, Joe Maimon said:
I only ever say class-c sized. And only when trying to communicate with the slash-whats.
Your mistake there is trying to communicate with people who have been in networking long enough to understand "class-c", but *still* haven't educated themselves out of the slash-what stage. Such people deserve to be shunned.
The new guys dont know to shun these old folk. And then its too late. Joe
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol
More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than "slash twenty four" :-)
Not to mention that it's classier. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On 01/15/2013 11:12 AM, Network Operations wrote:
Anyone seeing any issues with level3? We can connect to every other IP in our Class C. When tracerouting to individual IP's, (x.x.x.50/51/52/53) we get a drop at ge-4-16.car2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.59.146.53] for 50, but 51 is fine, drop for 52, 53 is fine.
Thanks.
It is not just you. We are seeing issue with that Level3 router/site as well. I would report it to Level3, but I don't see any need to add to my already extensive collection of one line Level3 support responses saying "All is well. Nothing to see here. All is well." My guess would be that your up/down for individual IPs is a result of your testing methodology. That Level3 router/site appears to be dropping some packets to all IPs that I tested before dropping my conn there. Our response to the nearly constant Level3 issues of the past 12/18 months has been terminate them. The washington1.level3 site was unfortunately the last on my list of DCs. -- -______________________ David Miller dmiller@tiggee.com
Hi David, I'm sorry you've had so many poor experiences with Level 3 recently, but I assure you that we have acknowledged the problem and are actively working on it at present. Of general operations interest, I just saw an event notification that matches the description of the problem and our NOC, engineering team and vendor are working together to solve the problem. If you are a customer and believe you are impacted, you can reference event case ID: 6237890 as potentially being the related case. Dave -----Original Message----- From: David Miller [mailto:dmiller@tiggee.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:38 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Cc: NetworkOperations@etsms.com Subject: Re: Issues with level3? On 01/15/2013 11:12 AM, Network Operations wrote:
Anyone seeing any issues with level3? We can connect to every other IP in our Class C. When tracerouting to individual IP's, (x.x.x.50/51/52/53) we get a drop at ge-4-16.car2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.59.146.53] for 50, but 51 is fine, drop for 52, 53 is fine.
Thanks.
It is not just you. We are seeing issue with that Level3 router/site as well. I would report it to Level3, but I don't see any need to add to my already extensive collection of one line Level3 support responses saying "All is well. Nothing to see here. All is well." My guess would be that your up/down for individual IPs is a result of your testing methodology. That Level3 router/site appears to be dropping some packets to all IPs that I tested before dropping my conn there. Our response to the nearly constant Level3 issues of the past 12/18 months has been terminate them. The washington1.level3 site was unfortunately the last on my list of DCs. -- -______________________ David Miller dmiller@tiggee.com
participants (12)
-
Bruce H McIntosh -
Christopher Morrow -
David Miller -
Joe Greco -
Joe Maimon -
joel jaeggli -
Network Operations -
Randy Carpenter -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Siegel, David -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Warren Bailey