anyone from cisco.com DNS Team around?
Hi, I have trouble to activate my Cisco NCS5xxx Devices. Turns out that tools.cisco.com. resolves to either 173.37.145.8 (this works) or 72.163.4.38 (which was decommissioned earlier this year). By running dig A tools.cisco.com @alln01-ucs-dcz03n-gslb1-snip.cisco.com four times I can reproduce this. Cisco, please fix your DNS. Thanks Thomas
Re: contact with mail support for domain cisco.com
On Thu 2016-Apr-28 09:48:09 +0200, Piotr <piotr.1...@interia.pl> wrote: Hi, There is a problem with sending emails from employees in @cisco.com domain to some certain domain. Emails in opposite direction pass without problem. No errors, warnings or any other logs at cisco's employees desktop.. We checked popular rbls, spamhauses, senderbase etc. Other domains on the same MX cluster receive emails from @cisco.com.. I try to get help in many ways ( cisco tac, a few account managers, channel partners) but without success.. Big thanks for contact via email: peter.handke.1966 at gmail.com or any other advice You've given us damn near zero information to go on. Are you with Cisco? Or managing some of these "certain domains" to which cisco.com addresses cannot send? It sounds like the latter and that seems more plausible as I'd be pretty surprised to find a cisco.com postmaster sending a vague request like this to nanog. I don't really get how TAC would be involved; have you tried postmas...@cisco.com? Assuming that you *are* the receiving side, what logs do you have on this? What are the names of these "certain domains"? Are they all under the same administrative control / same MXs (I'm assuming yes)? This also seems like something for mailop[1] rather than nanog. Fair warning; they're using Let's Encrypt and are having trouble with the rollover, so the cert's expired again. best regards, Peter -- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal [1] https://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop signature.asc Description: Digital signature
contact with mail support for domain cisco.com
Hi, There is a problem with sending emails from employees in @cisco.com domain to some certain domain. Emails in opposite direction pass without problem. No errors, warnings or any other logs at cisco's employees desktop.. We checked popular rbls, spamhauses, senderbase etc. Other domains on the same MX cluster receive emails from @cisco.com.. I try to get help in many ways ( cisco tac, a few account managers, channel partners) but without success.. Big thanks for contact via email: peter.handke.1966 at gmail.com or any other advice best regards, Peter
Re: cisco.com unavailable
I've been using it from Oregon, USA all morning without problems. On 9/21/2015 11:51 AM, Murat Kaipov wrote: Hi folks! Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for Rostelecom?
Re: cisco.com unavailable
Available in Hungary. Roderick Beck Sales - Europe and the Americas This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Re: cisco.com unavailable
> Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for > Rostelecom? Works fine here in The Netherlands (ISP: Solcon). Cheers, Sander
Re: cisco.com unavailable
All set for me; East Africa, Kenya, Nairobi .. I can also see some serious dude fixing a bike on the site. Tracing route to cisco.com [72.163.4.161] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1 211 ms 224 ms13 ms 10.34.0.1 3 7 ms 7 ms 6 ms 196.207.31.181.accesskenya.com [196.207.31.181] 410 ms10 ms17 ms te2-1.er1.bp.nbo.accesskenya.net [196.207.31.145 ] 5 652 ms 161 ms 515 ms if-6-0-2.core4.LDN-London.as6453.net [80.231.76. 101] 6 395 ms 1139 ms 148 ms if-1-3-1-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net [80.231. 76.86] 7 197 ms 147 ms 188 ms 195.219.83.102 8 *** Request timed out. 9 *** Request timed out. 10 313 ms * 283 ms CISCO-SYSTE.ear1.Dallas1.Level3.net [4.30.74.46] 11 270 ms 264 ms 329 ms rcdn9-cd2-dmzbb-gw2-ten1-1.cisco.com [72.163.0.2 1] 12 299 ms 326 ms 323 ms rcdn9-cd2-dmzdcc-gw2-por2.cisco.com [72.163.0.19 0] 13 291 ms 534 ms 256 ms rcdn9-16b-dcz05n-gw2-por2.cisco.com [72.163.2.11 0] 14 275 ms 598 ms 270 ms www1.cisco.com [72.163.4.161] Trace complete. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Robert Glover <robe...@garlic.com> wrote: > On 9/21/2015 11:51 AM, Murat Kaipov wrote: > >> Hi folks! >> Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for >> Rostelecom? >> > > All is well from Cogent, Charter, and Verizon Wireless > > -- Samson Oduor
Re: cisco.com unavailable
Now all works fine. mkaipov$ traceroute www.cisco.com traceroute to e144.dscb.akamaiedge.net (23.78.32.170), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 router.asus.com (10.10.0.1) 1.598 ms 1.287 ms 1.126 ms 2 62.182.11.92 (62.182.11.92) 1.878 ms 1.789 ms 1.863 ms 3 91.221.157.1 (91.221.157.1) 3.145 ms 3.361 ms 3.081 ms 4 rdn06.transtelecom.net (217.150.56.234) 10.898 ms 10.362 ms 10.067 ms 5 10.78.146.2 (10.78.146.2) 47.051 ms 47.222 ms 46.991 ms 6 * * * 7 eth2-4.r1.sto2.se.as5580.net (78.152.34.215) 76.838 ms 73.685 ms 73.822 ms 8 eth3-1.r1.cph1.dk.as5580.net (78.152.34.158) 82.728 ms 93.950 ms 82.614 ms 9 akamai-20940-gw.cph01-1.dk.as5580.net (78.152.57.10) 86.037 ms 85.568 ms 85.522 ms 10 a23-78-32-170.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com (23.78.32.170) 81.347 ms 86.100 ms 81.352 ms MBP-Murat:~ mkaipov$ > 21 сент. 2015 г., в 22:33, Justin Wilson - MTIN <li...@mtin.net> написал(а): > > http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ > > > > > Justin Wilson > j...@mtin.net > > --- > http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO > xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth > > http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman > Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: >> >>>> Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for >>>> Rostelecom? >> >> No problems here from either v4 or v6. >> >> -- >> Hugo >
Re: cisco.com unavailable
Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for Rostelecom? No problems here from either v4 or v6. -- Hugo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cisco.com unavailable
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Murat Kaipov wrote: > Hi folks! > Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for > Rostelecom? http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/cisco.com > It's just you. http://cisco.com is up. ~Marcin
Re: cisco.com unavailable
Works from the UK from a few ISP's -- -- Regards, Hal Ponton Senior Network Engineer Buzcom / FibreWiFi Keith Stokes <mailto:kei...@neilltech.com> 21 September 2015 19:55 It works fine for me from Cox. --- Keith Stokes From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Murat Kaipov <mkai...@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:51 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com unavailable Hi folks! Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for Rostelecom? Murat Kaipov <mailto:mkai...@outlook.com> 21 September 2015 19:51 Hi folks! Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for Rostelecom?
Re: cisco.com unavailable
On 9/21/2015 11:51 AM, Murat Kaipov wrote: Hi folks! Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for Rostelecom? All is well from Cogent, Charter, and Verizon Wireless
Re: cisco.com unavailable
2 minutes ago all had worked fine, now I have same trouble. mkaipov$ traceroute cisco.com traceroute to cisco.com (72.163.4.161), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 router.asus.com (10.10.0.1) 1.536 ms 1.232 ms 1.176 ms 2 62.182.11.92 (62.182.11.92) 1.934 ms 2.924 ms 3.251 ms 3 isp2.aquafon.com (62.182.11.26) 2.140 ms 2.421 ms 2.380 ms 4 u111asr1002tr2-isp2.aquafon.com (91.221.157.5) 4.767 ms 3.515 ms 3.243 ms 5 62.183.37.150 (62.183.37.150) 3.585 ms 3.573 ms 3.465 ms 6 230.100.sochicom.biz (85.174.230.100) 3.898 ms 5.611 ms 3.671 ms 7 85.174.230.225 (85.174.230.225) 16.177 ms 17.043 ms 15.573 ms 8 85.175.2.69 (85.175.2.69) 13.401 ms 20.689 ms 13.170 ms 9 188.254.36.249 (188.254.36.249) 28.386 ms 188.254.36.253 (188.254.36.253) 14.295 ms 27.329 ms 10 87.226.133.103 (87.226.133.103) 72.963 ms * 69.451 ms 11 s-b3-link.telia.net (213.248.95.105) 49.969 ms 50.155 ms s-b3-link.telia.net (62.115.11.57) 66.943 ms 12 s-bb3-link.telia.net (213.155.133.16) 75.242 ms s-bb3-link.telia.net (62.115.137.158) 71.001 ms 70.112 ms 13 s-b6-link.telia.net (62.115.141.201) 71.606 ms s-b6-link.telia.net (62.115.136.23) 47.700 ms s-b6-link.telia.net (62.115.136.21) 48.270 ms 14 level3-ic-155475-s-b2.c.telia.net (213.248.99.134) 48.129 ms 49.995 ms 66.182 ms 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 cisco-syste.ear1.dallas1.level3.net (4.30.74.46) 195.112 ms 308.241 ms 193.757 ms 18 rcdn9-cd1-dmzbb-gw1-ten1-1.cisco.com (72.163.0.5) 197.443 ms 193.921 ms 420.050 ms 19 rcdn9-cd1-dmzdcc-gw1-por1.cisco.com (72.163.0.178) 307.371 ms 307.396 ms 306.593 ms 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * > 21 сент. 2015 г., в 22:05, Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> написал(а): > > >> Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for >> Rostelecom? > > Works fine here in The Netherlands (ISP: Solcon). > > Cheers, > Sander >
Re: cisco.com unavailable
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net --- http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric > On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: > >>> Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for >>> Rostelecom? > > No problems here from either v4 or v6. > > -- > Hugo
Re: cisco.com unavailable
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:58:39 -0400, Dovid Bender said: > Working from Verizon FiOS > > [root@yosefh-OptiPlex-3020 ~]# wget cisco.com Somebody's a trusting soul :) pgpp_mxiyGC6X.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cisco.com unavailable
I get there with no problem. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Murat Kaipov <mkai...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hi folks! > Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for > Rostelecom?
Re: cisco.com unavailable
Thanks to all of you. I think there issue with ISP’s connectivity in Russia. > 21 сент. 2015 г., в 21:55, Keith Stokes <kei...@neilltech.com> написал(а): > > It works fine for me from Cox. > > > > --- > > Keith Stokes > > > From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Murat Kaipov > <mkai...@outlook.com> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:51 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: cisco.com unavailable > > Hi folks! > Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for > Rostelecom?
Re: cisco.com unavailable
Works for me via Frontier, south west Ohio. 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.10.10.1 2 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.149.254.1 3 7 ms 5 ms 6 ms 45.52.8.205 421 ms20 ms21 ms 74.40.5.58 519 ms20 ms20 ms 74.42.149.189 622 ms20 ms21 ms 74.40.4.138 720 ms20 ms21 ms 4.53.98.17 8 *** Request timed out. 9 *** Request timed out. 1049 ms49 ms49 ms 4.30.74.46 11 145 ms48 ms50 ms 72.163.0.5 1248 ms47 ms47 ms 72.163.0.178 1348 ms47 ms48 ms 72.163.2.98 1448 ms48 ms48 ms 72.163.4.161 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Murat Kaipov <mkai...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hi folks! > Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for > Rostelecom?
Re: cisco.com unavailable
I had no difficulty getting to it, but it appears that I probably got to an Akamai box: Non-authoritative answer: Name:e144.dscb.akamaiedge.net Addresses: 2600:1409:a:185::90 2600:1409:a:18b::90 23.200.208.170 Aliases: www.cisco.com www.cisco.com.akadns.net wwwds.cisco.com.edgekey.net wwwds.cisco.com.edgekey.net.globalredir.akadns.net Non-authoritative answer: Name:cisco.com Addresses: 2001:420:1101:1::a 72.163.4.161 On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Murat Kaipov <mkai...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hi folks! > Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for > Rostelecom?
cisco.com unavailable
Hi folks! Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for Rostelecom?
Re: cisco.com unavailable
It works fine for me from Cox. --- Keith Stokes From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Murat Kaipov <mkai...@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:51 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com unavailable Hi folks! Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for Rostelecom?
Re: cisco.com unavailable
Working from Verizon FiOS [root@yosefh-OptiPlex-3020 ~]# wget cisco.com --2015-09-21 14:57:58-- http://cisco.com/ Resolving cisco.com (cisco.com)... 72.163.4.161, 2001:420:1101:1::a Connecting to cisco.com (cisco.com)|72.163.4.161|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently Location: http://www.cisco.com/ [following] --2015-09-21 14:57:58-- http://www.cisco.com/ Resolving www.cisco.com (www.cisco.com)... 23.76.208.170, 2600:141b:4:288::90, 2600:141b:4:29b::90 Connecting to www.cisco.com (www.cisco.com)|23.76.208.170|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: ‘index.html’ [ <=> ] 52,865 --.-K/s in 0.01s 2015-09-21 14:57:58 (5.09 MB/s) - ‘index.html’ saved [52865] [root@yosefh-OptiPlex-3020 ~]# On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Murat Kaipov <mkai...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hi folks! > Is cisco.com <http://cisco.com/> unavailable or it is affected just for > Rostelecom?
cisco.com
Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
Re: cisco.com
Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: cisco.com
Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben -- Dominic J. Eidson Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu! - Gimli http://www.dominiceidson.com/
Re: cisco.com
Not sure the ETA but the network that the address for cisco.com resolves to (198.133.219.0/24) is no longer in BGP. -- - Aaron Millisor R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
Re: cisco.com
I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Here too -- snip -- core-01.fra1#sh ip bgp 198.133.219.25 BGP4 : None of the BGP4 routes match the display condition -- snap --
Re: cisco.com
Facebook up. Cisco down. From eastern canada --Original Message-- From: Alex Nderitu To: R. Benjamin Kessler Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com Sent: Aug 4, 2009 10:42 AM Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
Re: cisco.com
Seeing same issue from Chicago via Qwest and HE. Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben -- Dominic J. Eidson Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu! - Gimli http://www.dominiceidson.com/ -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 ch...@uplogon.com
Re: cisco.com
We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook seems fine Dominic J. Eidson wrote: Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
Re: cisco.com
Am 04.08.2009 um 15:42 schrieb Alex Nderitu: Facebook seems to also be affected. facebook works fine from germany I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #97.520dd58.1249393745.3bb006 is #down Marc
Re: cisco.com
So cisco has no BGP is that what I'm hearing... Oh the irony :) --Original Message-- From: Aaron Millisor To: R. Benjamin Kessler Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com Sent: Aug 4, 2009 10:45 AM Not sure the ETA but the network that the address for cisco.com resolves to (198.133.219.0/24) is no longer in BGP. -- - Aaron Millisor R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
Re: cisco.com
See: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2009-August/001386.html I do not have a route to that IP (198.133.219.25) in BGP either.. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:34 AM, R. Benjamin Kesslerr...@mnsginc.com wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
Re: cisco.com
can't get to cisco.com from here atm either, but can get to facebook. looks like facebook is now coming from ashburn, va. cisco dies within level3 for us, and for route-views.oregon-ix.net: 5 eugn-core1-gw.nero.net (207.98.64.161) [AS 3701] !H * !H don't see that address (198.133.219.25) in the global routing table either. show ip bgp 198.133.219.0 % Network not in table R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
Re: cisco.com
On Tue Aug 04, 2009, Jon Auer wrote: See: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2009-August/001386.html I do not have a route to that IP (198.133.219.25) in BGP either.. Route is not longer in the routing table since (CET) 08/04 13:55:57 Withdraw 198.133.219.0/24 German pgpMuXvcWuWcP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cisco.com
Same here in Prague (various upstreams in Central Europe) MK Jon Auer napsal(a): See: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2009-August/001386.html I do not have a route to that IP (198.133.219.25) in BGP either.. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:34 AM, R. Benjamin Kesslerr...@mnsginc.com wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
RE: cisco.com
Same here via Verizon, Level3 and Comcast. Btw... all 3 resolve to the same 198.133.219.25 addr. -Original Message- From: Chris Gotstein [mailto:ch...@uplogon.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:48 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com Seeing same issue from Chicago via Qwest and HE. Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben -- Dominic J. Eidson Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu! - Gimli http://www.dominiceidson.com/ -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 ch...@uplogon.com
Re: cisco.com
Missing route on Internap also. Netraft shows cisco.com went down right at 12:00GMT. http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/graph?site=www.cisco.com On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:48 AM, sjks...@sleepycatz.com wrote: We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook seems fine Dominic J. Eidson wrote: Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
RE: cisco.com
No route for 198.133.219.0/24 in 22820 from our upstream (3356 and 174). -Scott W -Original Message- From: sjk [mailto:s...@sleepycatz.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:49 AM To: Dominic J. Eidson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook seems fine Dominic J. Eidson wrote: Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
Re: cisco.com
Hi everyone, same issue from Italy, via Fastweb and Retelit. deles...@gmail.com ha scritto: Facebook up. Cisco down. From eastern canada
Re: cisco.com
FB up, Cisco down, from SATX (Time Warner Road Runner) J
RE: cisco.com
Just watched the rviews via bgplay for the aforementioned /24, shows them converging from ATT internet, to ATT Worldnet, to Sprint + Globix, to AAAaah! -Original Message- From: Marc Manthey [mailto:m...@let.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:50 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com Am 04.08.2009 um 15:42 schrieb Alex Nderitu: Facebook seems to also be affected. facebook works fine from germany I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #97.520dd58.1249393745.3bb006 is #down Marc
Re: cisco.com
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:34:46AM -0400, R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Instead of the hoot-n-holler line, maybe check bgp? route-views.oregon-ix.netsho ip bgp 198.133.219.25 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 8654975 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 4826 7018 109 114.31.199.1 from 114.31.199.1 (114.31.199.1) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best route-views.oregon-ix.net route-serversho ip bgp 198.133.219.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 11641505 Paths: (15 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Flag: 0x24A0 Not advertised to any peer 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.134.124 from 12.123.134.124 (12.123.134.124) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.1.236 from 12.123.1.236 (12.123.1.236) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.21.243 from 12.123.21.243 (12.123.21.243) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.13.241 from 12.123.13.241 (12.123.13.241) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.9.241 from 12.123.9.241 (12.123.9.241) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.145.124 from 12.123.145.124 (12.123.145.124) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.139.124 from 12.123.139.124 (12.123.139.124) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.142.124 from 12.123.142.124 (12.123.142.124) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.17.244 from 12.123.17.244 (12.123.17.244) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.5.240 from 12.123.5.240 (12.123.5.240) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.137.124 from 12.123.137.124 (12.123.137.124) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.33.249 from 12.123.33.249 (12.123.33.249) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.25.245 from 12.123.25.245 (12.123.25.245) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.123.45.252 from 12.123.45.252 (12.123.45.252) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:2000 7018:32112 7018 109, (received used) 12.122.125.4 from 12.122.125.4 (12.122.125.4) Origin IGP, metric 411, localpref 100, valid, external route-server http://onestepconsulting.org/communities/as7018/ doesn't indicate anything meaningful for those communities, so presumably they are internal. 109 appears to be properly originating, so ... -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
RE: cisco.com
The IP is back in BGP and the website is working for me now.
Re: cisco.com
Maybe that has to do with the end of life notice they put for BGP. You can find the thread at https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2009-August/062865.html deles...@gmail.com wrote: So cisco has no BGP is that what I'm hearing... Oh the irony :) --Original Message-- From: Aaron Millisor To: R. Benjamin Kessler Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com Sent: Aug 4, 2009 10:45 AM Not sure the ETA but the network that the address for cisco.com resolves to (198.133.219.0/24) is no longer in BGP. -- - Aaron Millisor R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -- - Brian Raaen Network Engineer email: /bra...@zcorum.com/ mailto:bra...@zcorum.com Telephone /678-507-5000x5574/ begin:vcard fn:Brian Raaen n:Raaen;Brian org:Zcorum;DataCenter adr:Georgia;;United States of America email;internet:bra...@zcorum.com title:Network Engineer tel;work:678-507-5000 version:2.1 end:vcard
RE: cisco.com
Looks like it's back. rtr-inet1#show ip bgp 198.133.219.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 4296794 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to update-groups: 1 6128 7132 109, (received used) 69.74.151.237 from 69.74.151.237 (65.19.127.20) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best rtr-inet2#show ip bgp 198.133.219.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 11588586 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 6128 7132 109, (received used) 129.77.19.1 from 129.77.19.1 (129.77.9.252) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best 6395 3356 7018 109, (received used) 67.96.160.189 from 67.96.160.189 (216.140.10.58) Origin IGP, metric 6, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 6395:1 6395:1006 Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 -Original Message- From: Michal Krsek [mailto:mic...@krsek.cz] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:59 AM To: Jon Auer Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com Same here in Prague (various upstreams in Central Europe) MK Jon Auer napsal(a): See: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2009- August/001386.html I do not have a route to that IP (198.133.219.25) in BGP either.. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:34 AM, R. Benjamin Kesslerr...@mnsginc.com wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben Matthew Huff.vcf Description: Binary data smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: cisco.com
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/final_update_ciscocom_outage/ On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM, deles...@gmail.com wrote: So cisco has no BGP is that what I'm hearing... Oh the irony :) --Original Message-- From: Aaron Millisor To: R. Benjamin Kessler Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com Sent: Aug 4, 2009 10:45 AM Not sure the ETA but the network that the address for cisco.com resolves to (198.133.219.0/24) is no longer in BGP. -- - Aaron Millisor R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -- Samson Oduor
Re: cisco.com
Seeing them off of Sprint now. . . weird sjk wrote: We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook seems fine
Re: cisco.com
On Aug 4, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Jason Vanick wrote: Same here via Verizon, Level3 and Comcast. No trouble in Virginia with either Cox Cable or Cogent. Btw... all 3 resolve to the same 198.133.219.25 addr. That's what I get ;; ANSWER SECTION: cisco.com. 86400 IN A 198.133.219.25 so, that sounds like routing to me. BTW, 198.133.219.26 is ping-able from here. Marshall -Original Message- From: Chris Gotstein [mailto:ch...@uplogon.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:48 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com Seeing same issue from Chicago via Qwest and HE. Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben -- Dominic J. Eidson Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai- menu! - Gimli http://www.dominiceidson.com/ -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 ch...@uplogon.com
Re: cisco.com
On Tue Aug 04, 2009, Steve Rossen wrote: Route is back 08/04 13:55:57 Withdraw 198.133.219.0/24 08/04 16:04:53 Update 198.133.219.0/24 Times are CET. German Missing route on Internap also. Netraft shows cisco.com went down right at 12:00GMT. http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/graph?site=www.cisco.com On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:48 AM, sjks...@sleepycatz.com wrote: We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook seems fine Dominic J. Eidson wrote: Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben pgp3wU4dKkoJO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cisco.com
On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Scott Wolfe wrote: No route for 198.133.219.0/24 in 22820 from our upstream (3356 and 174). -Scott W Through Cogent tme$ traceroute 198.133.219.26 traceroute to 198.133.219.26 (198.133.219.26), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 dmz-mct2.americafree.tv (63.105.122.1) 0.673 ms 0.394 ms 0.243 ms 2 gi0-7.na21.b002176-1.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.99.206.153) 0.690 ms 0.721 ms 0.970 ms 3 te9-2.3687.mpd01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.20.43.49) 0.984 ms 0.965 ms 0.732 ms 4 vl3491.ccr02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.7.234) 0.976 ms 0.923 ms 0.726 ms 5 te8-3.ccr02.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.26.134) 54.971 ms te4-3.ccr02.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.26.138) 3.705 ms 13.960 ms 6 sl-st30-ash-0-11-3-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.205) 1.973 ms 2.089 ms 1.975 ms 7 sl-crs1-dc-0-13-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.25.12) 3.495 ms 3.043 ms 2.734 ms 8 sl-bb20-dc-3-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.15.10) 2.989 ms sl-crs1- rly-0-13-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.212) 5.824 ms sl-crs1- rly-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.222) 5.860 ms 9 sl-crs1-rly-0-9-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.13) 5.613 ms 5.134 ms 4.477 ms 10 sl-gw18-sj-13-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.6) 71.695 ms 71.306 ms 72.170 ms 11 144.228.44.14 (144.228.44.14) 72.156 ms 72.895 ms 71.916 ms 12 sjce-dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.89) 72.154 ms 144.228.44.14 (144.228.44.14) 72.301 ms sjce-dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.89) 72.329 ms 13 sjck-dmzdc-gw2-gig5-2.cisco.com (128.107.224.73) 72.422 ms sjce- dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.89) 71.853 ms sjck-dmzdc-gw2- gig5-2.cisco.com (128.107.224.73) 72.173 ms 14 sjck-dmzdc-gw2-gig5-2.cisco.com (128.107.224.73) 72.393 ms * 71.648 ms 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * Could other Sprint routes be affected ? Regards Marshall -Original Message- From: sjk [mailto:s...@sleepycatz.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:49 AM To: Dominic J. Eidson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook seems fine Dominic J. Eidson wrote: Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
RE: cisco.com
All Ok from France through Sprintlink and Telia sh ip bgp 198.133.219.25 Number of BGP Routes matching display condition : 2 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, best, i internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete NetworkNext HopMetric LocPrf Weight Path * 198.133.219.0/24 217.118.238.45 1370 1200 1239 109 i * 198.133.219.0/24 213.248.77.181 1200 1299 7018 109 i Cisco and facebook available -Message d'origine- De : Steve Rossen [mailto:steve.ros...@gmail.com] Envoyé : mardi 4 août 2009 16:03 À : nanog@nanog.org Objet : Re: cisco.com Missing route on Internap also. Netraft shows cisco.com went down right at 12:00GMT. http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/graph?site=www.cisco.com On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:48 AM, sjks...@sleepycatz.com wrote: We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook seems fine Dominic J. Eidson wrote: Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
Re: cisco.com
I now have a route to 198.133.219.0/24 Cisco.com is back up. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:03, Scott Wolfe scott.wo...@cybera.net wrote: No route for 198.133.219.0/24 in 22820 from our upstream (3356 and 174). -Scott W -Original Message- From: sjk [mailto:s...@sleepycatz.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:49 AM To: Dominic J. Eidson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook seems fine Dominic J. Eidson wrote: Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben -- BH
Re: cisco.com (back now)
I see it now via 6453 7132 109 174 1239 109 ---Mike Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications,m...@sentex.net Providing Internet since 1994www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike
RE: cisco.com
FACEBOOK: UP CISCO: UP LOCATION: PORTLAND, OR David Hiers CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP ADP Dealer Services 2525 SW 1st Ave. Suite 300W Portland, OR 97201 o: 503-205-4467 f: 503-402-3277 -Original Message- From: Scott Wolfe [mailto:scott.wo...@cybera.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:04 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: cisco.com No route for 198.133.219.0/24 in 22820 from our upstream (3356 and 174). -Scott W -Original Message- From: sjk [mailto:s...@sleepycatz.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:49 AM To: Dominic J. Eidson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook seems fine Dominic J. Eidson wrote: Both work from Austin, TX. - d. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote: Facebook seems to also be affected. -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler r...@mnsginc.com To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400 Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
Re: cisco.com
Well, Cisco *did* EoS/EoL BGP last week. I guess there really wasn't all that much industry traction on whatever protocol they decided to replace it with. https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2009-July/062646.html ;p On 4-Aug-09, at 9:45 AM, Aaron Millisor wrote: Not sure the ETA but the network that the address for cisco.com resolves to (198.133.219.0/24) is no longer in BGP. -- - Aaron Millisor R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
Re: cisco.com
Cisco.com up again in Italy. Regards, German Martinez ha scritto: On Tue Aug 04, 2009, Jon Auer wrote: See: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2009-August/001386.html I do not have a route to that IP (198.133.219.25) in BGP either.. Route is not longer in the routing table since (CET) 08/04 13:55:57 Withdraw 198.133.219.0/24 German
RE: cisco.com
See Cisco as Up Qwest, Cogent, Att, and L3 Midwest-US ~J -Original Message- From: Jorge Amodio [mailto:jmamo...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:07 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com FB up, Cisco down, from SATX (Time Warner Road Runner) J
RE: cisco.com
Cisco.com (198.133.219.25) is alive from .au (from ASN7474) Traceroute shows: 9 448 ms 419 ms 389 ms sjck-dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com [128.107.224.6] 10 427 ms 268 ms 279 ms sjck-dmzdc-gw2-gig5-1.cisco.com [128.107.224.77] Did a quick check on a few .au looking glass sites and getting entries for 198.133.219.0/24. --jay -Original Message- From: R. Benjamin Kessler [mailto:r...@mnsginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, 4 August 2009 11:35 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: cisco.com Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? Thanks, Ben
Re: cisco.com
Up via Sprintlink in London... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: cisco.com
On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: Looks like it's back. rtr-inet1#show ip bgp 198.133.219.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 4296794 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to update-groups: 1 6128 7132 109, (received used) 69.74.151.237 from 69.74.151.237 (65.19.127.20) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best rtr-inet2#show ip bgp 198.133.219.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 11588586 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 6128 7132 109, (received used) 129.77.19.1 from 129.77.19.1 (129.77.9.252) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best 6395 3356 7018 109, (received used) 67.96.160.189 from 67.96.160.189 (216.140.10.58) Origin IGP, metric 6, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 6395:1 6395:1006 Work from here as well sl-gw39-nyc-12-0-0-si28.sprintlink.net (144.228.178.109) AS/21986
Re: cisco.com
Sam Oduor wrote: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/final_update_ciscocom_outage/ I don't think the Kool-Aid powder is blending with the water...that's from (almost) two years ago. pt
Re: cisco.com
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Sam Oduorsam.od...@gmail.com wrote: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/final_update_ciscocom_outage/ Nice, except that the blog entry is from two years ago. What happened _today_?
Re: cisco.com
On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Sam Oduor wrote: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/final_update_ciscocom_outage/ That blog post is from 2007 so I'm assuming this was sent as a joke.
Re: cisco.com
Didn't you hear? Cisco EoLed BGP this time last week. I guess they really meant it! Justin deles...@gmail.com wrote: So cisco has no BGP is that what I'm hearing... Oh the irony :) --Original Message-- From: Aaron Millisor To: R. Benjamin Kessler Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: cisco.com Sent: Aug 4, 2009 10:45 AM Not sure the ETA but the network that the address for cisco.com resolves to (198.133.219.0/24) is no longer in BGP.
RE: cisco.com
[1]http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/final_update_ciscocom_outage/ FINAL UPDATE: Cisco.com Outage Service to [2]Cisco.com has been restored and all applications are now fully operational. The issue occurred during preventative maintenance of one of our data centers when a human error caused an electrical overload on the systems. This caused [3]Cisco.com and other applications to go down. Because of the severity of the overload, the redundancy measures in some of the applications and power systems were impacted as well, though the system did shut down as designed to protect the people and the equipment. As a result, no data were lost and no one was injured. Cisco has plans already in process to add additional redundancies to increase the resilience of these systems. Again, we thank our customers and our partners for their patience during the resolution of this issue. Posted by [4]Cisco PR at 12:00AM PST Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://[5]www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 [cid:image001.jpg@01CA14F5.53540A00] From: Myke Lyons [mailto:myke.ly...@cmtww.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:47 AM To: Matthew Huff Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: Re: cisco.com On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: Looks like it's back. rtr-inet1#show ip bgp 198.133.219.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 4296794 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to update-groups: 1 6128 7132 109, (received used) 69.74.151.237 from 69.74.151.237 (65.19.127.20) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best rtr-inet2#show ip bgp 198.133.219.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 11588586 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 6128 7132 109, (received used) 129.77.19.1 from 129.77.19.1 (129.77.9.252) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best 6395 3356 7018 109, (received used) 67.96.160.189 from 67.96.160.189 (216.140.10.58) Origin IGP, metric 6, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 6395:1 6395:1006 Work from here as well sl-gw39-nyc-12-0-0-si28.sprintlink.net (144.228.178.109) AS/21986 References 1. http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/final_update_ciscocom_outage/ 2. http://www.cisco.com/ 3. http://www.cisco.com/ 4. http://blogs.cisco.com/authors/bio/46 5. http://www.otaotr.com/ image001.jpg Matthew Huff.vcf Description: Binary data smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: cisco.com
Disregard. This was from 2 years ago. Copied the link and verbage without verifying it. My bad. Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://[1]www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 [cid:image001.jpg@01CA14F5.A289E6D0] From: Matthew Huff Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 11:19 AM To: 'Myke Lyons' Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: cisco.com [2]http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/final_update_ciscocom_outage/ FINAL UPDATE: Cisco.com Outage Service to [3]Cisco.com has been restored and all applications are now fully operational. The issue occurred during preventative maintenance of one of our data centers when a human error caused an electrical overload on the systems. This caused [4]Cisco.com and other applications to go down. Because of the severity of the overload, the redundancy measures in some of the applications and power systems were impacted as well, though the system did shut down as designed to protect the people and the equipment. As a result, no data were lost and no one was injured. Cisco has plans already in process to add additional redundancies to increase the resilience of these systems. Again, we thank our customers and our partners for their patience during the resolution of this issue. Posted by [5]Cisco PR at 12:00AM PST Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://[6]www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 [cid:image001.jpg@01CA14F5.A289E6D0] From: Myke Lyons [mailto:myke.ly...@cmtww.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:47 AM To: Matthew Huff Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: Re: cisco.com On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: Looks like it's back. rtr-inet1#show ip bgp 198.133.219.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 4296794 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to update-groups: 1 6128 7132 109, (received used) 69.74.151.237 from 69.74.151.237 (65.19.127.20) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best rtr-inet2#show ip bgp 198.133.219.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 198.133.219.0/24, version 11588586 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 6128 7132 109, (received used) 129.77.19.1 from 129.77.19.1 (129.77.9.252) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best 6395 3356 7018 109, (received used) 67.96.160.189 from 67.96.160.189 (216.140.10.58) Origin IGP, metric 6, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 6395:1 6395:1006 Work from here as well sl-gw39-nyc-12-0-0-si28.sprintlink.net (144.228.178.109) AS/21986 References 1. http://www.otaotr.com/ 2. http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/final_update_ciscocom_outage/ 3. http://www.cisco.com/ 4. http://www.cisco.com/ 5. http://blogs.cisco.com/authors/bio/46 6. http://www.otaotr.com/ image001.jpg Matthew Huff2.vcf Description: Binary data smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: cisco.com
Well, Cisco *did* EoS/EoL BGP last week. I guess there really wasn't all that much industry traction on whatever protocol they decided to replace it with. https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2009-July/062646.html What happened could be: a) they were smoking something and indeed decided to use EIGRP rather than BGP. b) they were testing out 4 byte ASNs and had a software issue in their IOS c) someone in Cisco wanted to download a new IOS and got frustrated with their new site so he/she pulled the plug. Kudos to that brave Cisco employee. :-) -Hank
Re: cisco.com
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote: a) they were smoking something and indeed decided to use EIGRP rather than BGP. b) they were testing out 4 byte ASNs and had a software issue in their IOS c) someone in Cisco wanted to download a new IOS and got frustrated with their new site so he/she pulled the plug. Kudos to that brave Cisco employee. I'm assuming that the outage this morning was catastrophic enough that whoever in their IT/Neteng group was working on this couldn't open a TAC case, or there were problems opening the case and then calling back into the TAC to get it escalated to priority 1. I might be half-kidding :) jms
Re: cisco.com
On 5/08/2009, at 1:34 AM, R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? CCNAs everywhere panic as their monitoring tools tell them that the 'Internet' is down. -- Nathan Ward
Re: cisco.com
2009/8/5 Nathan Ward na...@daork.net On 5/08/2009, at 1:34 AM, R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: Hey Gang - I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? CCNAs everywhere panic as their monitoring tools tell them that the 'Internet' is down. -- Nathan Ward Oh the hilarity
Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 No idea -- maybe just a hiccup? - From my office in San Jose: %traceroute www.cisco.com Tracing route to www.cisco.com [198.133.219.25] over a maximum of 30 hops: [snip] 7 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms so-3-0-0.mpr2.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.30.173] 8 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms above-att.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.13.50] 9 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.12.2] 10 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.11.74] 11 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.253] 12 *** Request timed out. 13 *** Request timed out. 14 * ^C - From MIT: Tracing to: www.cisco.com 1 legacy26-0.default.csail.mit.edu (18.26.0.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 2 kalgan.trantor.csail.mit.edu (128.30.0.245) [AS40] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 3 B24-RTR-2-CSAIL.MIT.EDU (18.4.7.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 4 EXTERNAL-RTR-1-BACKBONE.MIT.EDU (18.168.0.18) [AS3] 1 ms 4 ms 2 ms 5 ge-6-23.car2.Boston1.Level3.net (4.79.2.1) [AS3356] 0 ms * 0 ms 6 * * ae-5-5.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.132.250) [AS3356] 8 ms 7 ae-61-61.csw1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.66) [AS3356] 10 ms 5 ms 16 ms 8 ae-13-69.car3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.16.5) [AS3356] 67 ms 59 ms 58 ms 9 att-level3-oc192.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.127.150) [AS3356] 17 ms 127 ms 12 ms 10 tbr1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.3.57) [] [MPLS: Label 31537 Exp 0] 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 11 12.122.16.153 (12.122.16.153) [] [MPLS: Label 19 Exp 0] 76 ms 77 ms 77 ms 12 cr1.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.1.190) [] [MPLS: Label 1188 Exp 0] 77 ms 76 ms 77 ms 13 12.122.17.146 (12.122.17.146) [] [MPLS: Label 31051 Exp 0] 77 ms 78 ms 78 ms 14 tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.10.6) [] [MPLS: Label 31320 Exp 0] 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms 15 gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.11.74) [] [MPLS: Label 323 Exp 0] 72 ms 71 ms 71 ms 16 gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.2.253) [] 76 ms 76 ms 77 ms 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGugixq1pz9mNUZTMRAnY3AKCIeE2oiRKl11ZRgsOLs/q6J5TyLwCgi/SQ mnTSn9TJY+yB2cjZSeKaulM= =DGbM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT?
Im seeing issues at sbc as well P:\tracert cisco.com Tracing route to cisco.com [198.133.219.25] over a maximum of 30 hops: 11 ms1 ms1 ms 10.5.7.254 21 ms1 ms1 ms 209.10.21.253 328 ms28 ms28 ms 209.10.9.37 428 ms27 ms27 ms 209.10.9.25 528 ms27 ms27 ms g-1-0-0.core2.nyc15.qualitytech.com [209.10.10.186] 628 ms28 ms28 ms so-1-0-0.core1.cgx2.globix.net [209.10.10.161] 728 ms28 ms28 ms pos-2-0.peer1.cgx3.globix.net [209.10.12.82] 8 316 ms 330 ms 326 ms ex1-g1-0.eqchil.sbcglobal.net [206.223.119.79] 9 368 ms 352 ms 333 ms ded4-g8-3-0.sntc01.pbi.net [151.164.41.165] 10 *** Request timed out. 11 *** Request timed out. 12 *** Request timed out. 13 *** Request timed out. 14 *** Request timed out. 15 *** Request timed out. 16 *** Request timed out. 17 *** Request timed out. 18 *** Request timed out. 19 *** Request timed out. 20 *** Request timed out. 21 *** Request timed out. 22 *** Request timed out. 23 *** Request timed out. 24 *** Request timed out. 25 *** Request timed out. 26 *** Request timed out. 27 *** Request timed out. 28 *** Request timed out. 29 *** Request timed out. 30 *** Request timed out. Regards, -- Christian J. Koch Network Engineer Quality Technology Services Direct: 212.334.8551 Mobile: 646.300.3387 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key Fingerprint: A8F1 2265 DD05 EC8C 2F3C 1556 51B1 F193 D2DA DED3 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:17 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT? -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 No idea -- maybe just a hiccup? - From my office in San Jose: %traceroute www.cisco.com Tracing route to www.cisco.com [198.133.219.25] over a maximum of 30 hops: [snip] 7 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms so-3-0-0.mpr2.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.30.173] 8 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms above-att.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.13.50] 9 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.12.2] 10 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.11.74] 11 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.253] 12 *** Request timed out. 13 *** Request timed out. 14 * ^C - From MIT: Tracing to: www.cisco.com 1 legacy26-0.default.csail.mit.edu (18.26.0.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 2 kalgan.trantor.csail.mit.edu (128.30.0.245) [AS40] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 3 B24-RTR-2-CSAIL.MIT.EDU (18.4.7.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 4 EXTERNAL-RTR-1-BACKBONE.MIT.EDU (18.168.0.18) [AS3] 1 ms 4 ms 2 ms 5 ge-6-23.car2.Boston1.Level3.net (4.79.2.1) [AS3356] 0 ms * 0 ms 6 * * ae-5-5.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.132.250) [AS3356] 8 ms 7 ae-61-61.csw1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.66) [AS3356] 10 ms 5 ms 16 ms 8 ae-13-69.car3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.16.5) [AS3356] 67 ms 59 ms 58 ms 9 att-level3-oc192.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.127.150) [AS3356] 17 ms 127 ms 12 ms 10 tbr1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.3.57) [] [MPLS: Label 31537 Exp 0] 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 11 12.122.16.153 (12.122.16.153) [] [MPLS: Label 19 Exp 0] 76 ms 77 ms 77 ms 12 cr1.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.1.190) [] [MPLS: Label 1188 Exp 0] 77 ms 76 ms 77 ms 13 12.122.17.146 (12.122.17.146) [] [MPLS: Label 31051 Exp 0] 77 ms 78 ms 78 ms 14 tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.10.6) [] [MPLS: Label 31320 Exp 0] 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms 15 gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.11.74) [] [MPLS: Label 323 Exp 0] 72 ms 71 ms 71 ms 16 gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.2.253) [] 76 ms 76 ms 77 ms 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGugixq1pz9mNUZTMRAnY3AKCIeE2oiRKl11ZRgsOLs/q6J5TyLwCgi/SQ mnTSn9TJY+yB2cjZSeKaulM= =DGbM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT?
Ditto. We've had a few folks contact the Internet Storm Center about this. First report came in at 2 pm ET. Marc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:17 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT? *** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION *** *** Status: Good Signature from Invalid Key *** Alert:Please verify signer's key before trusting signature. *** Signer: Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (0x63546533) *** Signed: 8/8/2007 2:17:21 PM *** Verified: 8/8/2007 2:31:04 PM *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** No idea -- maybe just a hiccup? From my office in San Jose: %traceroute www.cisco.com Tracing route to www.cisco.com [198.133.219.25] over a maximum of 30 hops: [snip] 7 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms so-3-0-0.mpr2.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.30.173] 8 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms above-att.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.13.50] 9 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.12.2] 10 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.11.74] 11 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.253] 12 *** Request timed out. 13 *** Request timed out. 14 * ^C From MIT: Tracing to: www.cisco.com 1 legacy26-0.default.csail.mit.edu (18.26.0.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 2 kalgan.trantor.csail.mit.edu (128.30.0.245) [AS40] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 3 B24-RTR-2-CSAIL.MIT.EDU (18.4.7.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 4 EXTERNAL-RTR-1-BACKBONE.MIT.EDU (18.168.0.18) [AS3] 1 ms 4 ms 2 ms 5 ge-6-23.car2.Boston1.Level3.net (4.79.2.1) [AS3356] 0 ms * 0 ms 6 * * ae-5-5.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.132.250) [AS3356] 8 ms 7 ae-61-61.csw1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.66) [AS3356] 10 ms 5 ms 16 ms 8 ae-13-69.car3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.16.5) [AS3356] 67 ms 59 ms 58 ms 9 att-level3-oc192.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.127.150) [AS3356] 17 ms 127 ms 12 ms 10 tbr1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.3.57) [] [MPLS: Label 31537 Exp 0] 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 11 12.122.16.153 (12.122.16.153) [] [MPLS: Label 19 Exp 0] 76 ms 77 ms 77 ms 12 cr1.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.1.190) [] [MPLS: Label 1188 Exp 0] 77 ms 76 ms 77 ms 13 12.122.17.146 (12.122.17.146) [] [MPLS: Label 31051 Exp 0] 77 ms 78 ms 78 ms 14 tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.10.6) [] [MPLS: Label 31320 Exp 0] 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms 15 gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.11.74) [] [MPLS: Label 323 Exp 0] 72 ms 71 ms 71 ms 16 gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.2.253) [] 76 ms 76 ms 77 ms 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * - ferg *** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT?
A brief look at routeviews shows www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25) originating from AS109 (Cisco) and transiting via AS7132 (ATT/SBC) and AS7018 (ATT). Thus I suspect this is an issue with AS109 (Cisco) and not with their providers. Though, I do feel wrong using the plural providers in this case... -Benson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus H. Sachs Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:33 PM To: 'Paul Ferguson' Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT? Ditto. We've had a few folks contact the Internet Storm Center about this. First report came in at 2 pm ET. Marc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:17 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT? *** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION *** *** Status: Good Signature from Invalid Key *** Alert:Please verify signer's key before trusting signature. *** Signer: Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (0x63546533) *** Signed: 8/8/2007 2:17:21 PM *** Verified: 8/8/2007 2:31:04 PM *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** No idea -- maybe just a hiccup? From my office in San Jose: %traceroute www.cisco.com Tracing route to www.cisco.com [198.133.219.25] over a maximum of 30 hops: [snip] 7 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms so-3-0-0.mpr2.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.30.173] 8 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms above-att.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.13.50] 9 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.12.2] 10 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.11.74] 11 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.253] 12 *** Request timed out. 13 *** Request timed out. 14 * ^C From MIT: Tracing to: www.cisco.com 1 legacy26-0.default.csail.mit.edu (18.26.0.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 2 kalgan.trantor.csail.mit.edu (128.30.0.245) [AS40] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 3 B24-RTR-2-CSAIL.MIT.EDU (18.4.7.1) [AS3] 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 4 EXTERNAL-RTR-1-BACKBONE.MIT.EDU (18.168.0.18) [AS3] 1 ms 4 ms 2 ms 5 ge-6-23.car2.Boston1.Level3.net (4.79.2.1) [AS3356] 0 ms * 0 ms 6 * * ae-5-5.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.132.250) [AS3356] 8 ms 7 ae-61-61.csw1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.66) [AS3356] 10 ms 5 ms 16 ms 8 ae-13-69.car3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.16.5) [AS3356] 67 ms 59 ms 58 ms 9 att-level3-oc192.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.127.150) [AS3356] 17 ms 127 ms 12 ms 10 tbr1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.3.57) [] [MPLS: Label 31537 Exp 0] 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 11 12.122.16.153 (12.122.16.153) [] [MPLS: Label 19 Exp 0] 76 ms 77 ms 77 ms 12 cr1.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.1.190) [] [MPLS: Label 1188 Exp 0] 77 ms 76 ms 77 ms 13 12.122.17.146 (12.122.17.146) [] [MPLS: Label 31051 Exp 0] 77 ms 78 ms 78 ms 14 tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.10.6) [] [MPLS: Label 31320 Exp 0] 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms 15 gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.11.74) [] [MPLS: Label 323 Exp 0] 72 ms 71 ms 71 ms 16 gar1.sj2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.2.253) [] 76 ms 76 ms 77 ms 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * - ferg *** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT?
I can't speak for Cisco or Cisco IT, but as evidenced by this email, at least part of our connectivity is up. No doubt someone official is looking at it as we speak. (I'll just lurk Nanog to get the skinny).. A brief look at routeviews shows www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25) originating from AS109 (Cisco) and transiting via AS7132 (ATT/SBC) and AS7018 (ATT). Thus I suspect this is an issue with AS109 (Cisco) and not with their providers. Though, I do feel wrong using the plural providers in this case... -Benson
Re: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Ferguson wrote: No idea -- maybe just a hiccup? No, the outage is real and affecting network and systems for internal and external services. - -- = bep -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGuiMZE1XcgMgrtyYRAmqXAJ49T9qynoNTigAJoWTNDs47gGm+fwCg1r5U UBMuGr0jH0mh0iBXRh+BPrw= =NHKE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT?
Yep; when I sent my previous note, AS109 was still originating routes. But packets seemed to die at the border router. Now I'm also seeing routes via AS701 (UU/Verizon Biz) and AS1239 (Sprint) as well as ATT, but still no connectivity. A few moments ago I was getting a response from the www.cisco.com website, but it was a 403 Forbidden response. Thus I suspect that it's not even a network problem so much as a website (LB, server, etc) issue, or a DDoS attack, etc. (Perhaps operators are changing route policy, trying to fix the wrong issue?) -Benson -Original Message- From: Michael Airhart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 3:06 PM To: Schliesser, Benson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT? I can't speak for Cisco or Cisco IT, but as evidenced by this email, at least part of our connectivity is up. No doubt someone official is looking at it as we speak. (I'll just lurk Nanog to get the skinny).. A brief look at routeviews shows www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25) originating from AS109 (Cisco) and transiting via AS7132 (ATT/SBC) and AS7018 (ATT). Thus I suspect this is an issue with AS109 (Cisco) and not with their providers. Though, I do feel wrong using the plural providers in this case... -Benson
Re: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT? [POWER UPDATE]
http://infiltrated.net/ciscoOutage.jpg -- J. Oquendo Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xF684C42E sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Michael Airhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't speak for Cisco or Cisco IT, but as evidenced by this email, at least part of our connectivity is up. No doubt someone official is looking at it as we speak. (I'll just lurk Nanog to get the skinny).. Cisco's problem seems to be have been resolved. Also see: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/08/update_ciscocom_site.html Thanks to everyone for their verification. :-) - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGujLsq1pz9mNUZTMRAu7pAJ4s2GtvR24DNGyLwGmEeaz6sLQx7gCfZW/J ALFp5DbrxnvdxL9Qfl8OyHk= =0gF2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
