Hey, I've been using AT&T's network for a while now, and I have a lot of very poor performance issues like this for a long time. The easy answer would be to trash AT&T but we've got a contract with them that hasn't expired yet. Since these are network related issues, I'm wondering if anyone on NANOG has a clue as to what is going on/the best people to approach. I've been calling folks at AT&T for several months to get answers that amount to "we are upgrading this link to an OC3" and even after the upgrade, the performace still sucks. dqc:chris {107} traceroute lycaeum.org traceroute to lycaeum.org (207.66.171.40), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 enet-IP4-de1-gw.bend2.EmpireNet.net (12.7.103.1) 0.440 ms 0.759 ms 0.375 ms 2 fe0-0.c7206.EmpireNet.net (12.7.96.1) 1.169 ms 1.71 ms 1.13 ms 3 12.127.193.109 (12.127.193.109) 18.43 ms 17.241 ms 21.98 ms 4 gr1-a3100s3.sffca.ip.att.net (192.205.35.1) 21.828 ms 32.112 ms 23.714 ms 5 att-gw.sf.cw.net (192.205.31.78) 473.411 ms 464.849 ms 494.304 ms 6 bordercore2.Seattle.cw.net (166.48.208.1) 482.713 ms 501.263 ms 511.764 ms 7 semaphore-corporation.Seattle.cw.net (166.48.208.6) 361.175 ms 368.1 ms 381.595 ms 8 fe0-0-0.sea2.semaphore.net (209.221.128.2) 383.171 ms 380.497 ms 447.556 ms 9 wolfe-gw-n-E12-3.semaphore.net (207.17.119.21) 677.106 ms 592.674 ms * 10 fci-sea-cr0-fa-0-0-0.flyingcroc.com (204.157.111.18) 573.205 ms 490.200 ms 454.482 ms 11 shaman.lycaeum.org (207.66.171.40) 493.69 ms 487.742 ms 487.732 ms lycaeum{101}% traceroute dqc.org traceroute to dqc.org (12.7.119.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 * fci-sea-cr0.flyingcroc.com (204.157.104.1) 1.823 ms 0.986 ms 2 204.157.111.17 (204.157.111.17) 1.723 ms 1.649 ms 1.172 ms 3 wolfe-gw-f-E12-3.semaphore.net (207.17.119.22) 1.818 ms 2.196 ms 8.317 ms 4 903.Hssi5-0.GW1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (137.39.136.21) 8.787 ms 2.265 ms 1.847 ms 5 103.ATM3-0.XR1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.200.42) 2.692 ms 6.655 ms 5.883 ms 6 295.ATM2-0.TR1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.200.106) 2.518 ms 2.821 ms 2.922 ms 7 110.ATM7-0.TR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.136.165) 50.112 ms 53.411 ms 48.689 ms 8 299.ATM7-0.XR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.221) 46.940 ms 52.094 ms 47.992 ms 9 195.ATM8-0-0.BR1.CHI1.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.1) 47.254 ms 47.534 ms 48.252 ms 10 137.39.23.50 (137.39.23.50) 50.224 ms 49.393 ms 50.897 ms 11 gr1-a340s1.cgcil.ip.att.net (192.205.31.113) 74.123 ms 68.746 ms 94.304 ms 12 br2-a350s3.cgcil.ip.att.net (192.205.31.106) 1019.882 ms 977.420 ms 958.934 ms 13 br1-h31.sffca.ip.att.net (12.127.14.110) 292.712 ms 91.461 ms 79.426 ms 14 ar1-a300s1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.127.1.133) 322.673 ms 417.481 ms 385.498 ms 15 12.127.193.102 (12.127.193.102) 367.061 ms 374.838 ms * 16 lightwave-2-GW1.bend1.EmpireNet.net (12.7.96.4) 422.924 ms 420.412 ms 419.702 ms 17 dqc.org (12.7.119.10) 461.522 ms 465.937 ms 452.014 ms -- Keep Cool, but Don't Freeze - Hellman's Mayonnaise
On Mon, Dec 21, 1998 at 10:29:53AM -0800, Chris Cappuccio put this into my mailbox:
Hey, I've been using AT&T's network for a while now, and I have a lot of very poor performance issues like this for a long time. The easy answer would be to trash AT&T but we've got a contract with them that hasn't expired yet. Since these are network related issues, I'm wondering if anyone on NANOG has a clue as to what is going on/the best people to approach. I've been calling folks at AT&T for several months to get answers that amount to "we are upgrading this link to an OC3" and even after the upgrade, the performace still sucks.
Because most of 12/8 is vulnerable as smurf amplifiers, has been for at least 2 years now, and nobody seems to give a rat's ass about fixing it, so all the skr1ptk1dd13z are using it to attack other people, thus sucking up all the bandwidth that might be available for legitmate use? PING 12.2.161.255: 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 12.2.161.198: icmp_seq=0. time=83. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.202: icmp_seq=0. time=84. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.162: icmp_seq=0. time=85. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.138: icmp_seq=0. time=85. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.195: icmp_seq=0. time=194. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.210: icmp_seq=0. time=329. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.199: icmp_seq=0. time=329. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.171: icmp_seq=0. time=329. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.252: icmp_seq=0. time=330. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.132: icmp_seq=0. time=351. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.209: icmp_seq=0. time=352. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.169: icmp_seq=0. time=352. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.154: icmp_seq=0. time=352. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.136: icmp_seq=0. time=461. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.183: icmp_seq=0. time=572. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.152: icmp_seq=0. time=689. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.142: icmp_seq=0. time=824. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.227: icmp_seq=0. time=934. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.172: icmp_seq=0. time=955. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.155: icmp_seq=0. time=1067. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.161: icmp_seq=0. time=1175. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.206: icmp_seq=0. time=1284. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.226: icmp_seq=0. time=1404. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.180: icmp_seq=0. time=1425. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.149: icmp_seq=0. time=1565. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.216: icmp_seq=0. time=1675. ms 64 bytes from 12.2.161.197: icmp_seq=0. time=1782. ms ^C ----12.2.161.255 PING Statistics---- 1 packets transmitted, 27 packets received, 27.00 times amplification round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 83/706/1782 -dalvenjah -- Dalvenjah FoxFire (aka Sven Nielsen) "Sir, your wit ambles well; Founder, the DALnet IRC Network it goes easily." e-mail: dalvenjah@dal.net WWW: http://www.dal.net/~dalvenjah/ whois: SN90 Try DALnet! http://www.dal.net/
participants (2)
-
Chris Cappuccio -
Dalvenjah FoxFire