Re: [Merit Network Operations Center: 01/29/92 ENSS 131 Ann Arbor unreachable 11:07 - 11:14 EST]
Sean, It was a long day yesterday. Yes, this was an IS-IS adjacency timeout, and information was collected, but not enough to nail the problem down. We still have our procedures in place, and we wait for future occurances. Kraig P.S. NWG, you didn't get my first message because of the return address I had on Sean's original message. ------------------------------------------------------------------
To: tko@merit.edu Cc: nwg@nic.near.net, skennedy@nic.near.net, nearnet-ops@nic.near.net Subject: Re: [Merit Network Operations Center: 01/29/92 ENSS 131 Ann Arbor unreachable 11:07 - 11:14 EST] In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:06:32 -0500. <9201300106.AA25646@home.merit.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 92 00:40:56 -0500 From: skennedy@BBN.COM
So this was one of the fabled IS_IS disconnects, or not? You didn't answer that question.
Thanks for the info!
Sean
-------
Received: from nic.near.net by LABS-N.BBN.COM id aa26680; 29 Jan 92 20:06 EST Received: from nic.near.net by nic.near.net id aa21463; 29 Jan 92 20:06 EST Received: from merit.edu by nic.near.net id aa21456; 29 Jan 92 20:06 EST Return-Path: <tko@merit.edu> Received: from home.merit.edu by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA21945; Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:06:33 -0500 Received: by home.merit.edu (4.1/client-0.9) id AA25646; Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:06:32 EST Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:06:32 EST From: tko@merit.edu Message-Id: <9201300106.AA25646@home.merit.edu> To: nwg@nic.near.net, skennedy@nic.near.net Subject: Re: [Merit Network Operations Center: 01/29/92 ENSS 131 Ann Arbor unreachable 11:07 - 11:14 EST] Cc: nearnet-ops@nic.near.net
Sean,
The Ann Arbor T3/T1 interconnect was down during the outage. I'll have a followup message posted to NSR mentioning that fact. As for moving the interconnect, there was no need to for this outage. The routing was almost completely restored before I could get the Houston interconnect up. The complete transfer to the Houston interconnect will only be used if the Ann Arbor node begins to drop IBGP sessions while it is in the middle of reestablishing others. Otherwise, it really does not do much to help the situation, rather, it causes more routing changes to take place.
Kraig
Thanks for the note. I purposely didn't CC' NWG to give you latitude to reply, after working late last night. Just did not edit it out. I will update our TT#2493. Please let us know when you've analyzed the info, and you can check our ticket by finger-TT#@nic.near.net. Sean
participants (2)
-
Kraig J. Owen
-
skennedy@BBN.COM