I didn't originally post this since it seemed not quite nanog but in response to jlewis's email I thought I would share. About 3 weeks ago I had a similar problem out here on the west coast. My response times across Mae-West where @Home and cerf.net peered with C&W was in the 2000ms range. I contacted my Noc's and was told that it was a congested peer point that C&W knew about and they were trying to work around it since C&W didn't want to fix it. To be fair I contacted C&W since I don't usually beleive the first thing a noc tells me when it comes to peering issues. C&W was able to show me traces through Mae-West that were beautiful. I then sent them my traces and we found the route difference. What I found was that @Home and Cerf.net were both peering over the shared FDDI at Mae-West and this had a sever congestion problem when it hit the first C&W router. However C&W did not use this route for their traces to me so they could not see this problem. The problem was further complicated by the fact that the C&W router in Mae-West was not available to the noc I was talking to so they could not check it's interfaces for congestion or problems. Now my problems still continue today but they are occasional and I have had the problem of ISP finger pointing. Who exactly do I complain to on issues like this ? To me this is one area where all the NDA's and other legal issues that cause ISP's to hide their peering arrangements causes problems. No single noc can tell any other noc very much about the peering points, so many congestion or routing problems go unfixed or forgotten. In my case @Home has decided to get another peer with another provider to go around that paticular point since they can't seem to resolve the issue directly with C&W. But the last statement is a quote from my account rep's and who knows how far that can be trusted. ----- Original Message ----- From: <jlewis@lewis.org> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 7:34 AM Subject: Peering: Sprint & CW

I do alot of stuff on a system sitting on a T1 to CW from my home which (through work) gets to the net via frac-T3 to Sprint and UUNet. Suddenly, yesterday connectivity from work/home to CW began to suck horribly. Today, it's no better. I called the Sprintlink NOC yesterday, and their response was it was an overloaded peering point in Washington, and don't hold my breath waiting for it to improve. Has anyone else noticed / been affected by this?

Between the packet loss and the latency, a 300bps modem would be preferable. I can get about half a line ahead of pine while typing, waiting for chars to show up so I can see my typos.

Maybe we should cancel the increase we just ordered in our Sprint T3 and order a CW frac-T3 instead.

Hostname %Loss Rcv Snt Best Avg Worst 1. maui.atlantic.net 0% 19 19 1 3 26 2. border1-s2-1.Orlando-WCom.atlantic.n 0% 19 19 21 40 99 3. sl-gw3-orl-6-0-1.sprintlink.net 0% 19 19 23 55 192 4. sl-bb10-orl-0-3.sprintlink.net 0% 19 19 23 38 98 5. sl-bb10-rly-1-0.sprintlink.net 0% 19 19 40 55 105 6. sl-bb2-dc-4-0-0.sprintlink.net 0% 19 19 42 58 100 7. core7-hssi0-0-0.Washington.cw.net 12% 15 18 1024 1083 1150 8. corerouter1.WashingtonEast.cw.net 6% 16 18 1038 1081 1144 9. acr1-loopback.Restonrst.cw.net 0% 17 18 1031 1079 1159 10. 206.24.179.2 95% 0 17 0 0 0 11. pride.se.cw.net 95% 0 17 0 0 0 12. webserver.ie.cw.net 0% 16 17 1014 1086 1161

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| Spammers will be winnuked or System Administrator | nestea'd...whatever it takes Atlantic Net | to get the job done. _________http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key__________