>> Michel Py wrote:
>> There is a regrouping of BGP feeds for various "questionable"
>> hosts and networks around AS29467;
> william(at)elan.net wrote:
> That is actually not correct. The AS29467 will stay as being
> used for BOGON and similar data. It is quite likely that other
> ASNs would be
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:41:34 -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
wrote:
>Yup. This is the form I saw in the PRC,
It's come to Thailand too: NIPA. Results in lots of puzzling
hits, or you end up at Google if NIPA can't find anything. You
also get this if there is a transient DNS lo
FYI - this is probably regarding the same issues:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/39381
They are reporting it as DDOS from "compromised home PCs", i.e. zombies.
There are some interesting rumors there (note its nothing more then rumors)
from lusers about possible irc connections and this be
> I think it would be interesting to hear how well or not well INOC-DBA worked
> out in this situation. Could someone give a short report?
dial 3356?
Steve
### On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:11:51 -0500, Chris Ranch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
### casually decided to expound upon "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
### the following thoughts about "RE: Genu/L3 Major Outage":
CR> Gotta love email latencies, where the gasp for help is heard after the
CR> proble
Using their own looking glass (lg.level3.net) produces all sorts
of route failures as well.
Show Level 3 (Raleigh, NC) Traceroute to so-3-3-0.edge1.SanJose1.Level3.net
(4.68.127.29)
1 ge-7-0-0.mpls1.Raleigh1.Level3.net (209.244.22.33) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
2 so-5-1-0.bbr1.Atlanta1.Level3.net
please do not post html to nanog
>
>
>
> Genu/L3 Major Outage
>
>
>
> Gotta
> love email latencies, where the gasp for help is heard after the problem goes
> away.
> style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #ff 2px solid;
> MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> size=2>-Orig
Title: Message
I have
no definite answers but the rumors are a major CEF problem on their
GSRs.
Justin RyburnTier II Router SupportXO CommunicationsPhone: (314)
787-7876E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris R
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Will Orton wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 05:53:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > anyone else seeing high latency via L3 , especially the west coast ?
> > - Keith
>
> Yes, I'm able to get the usual full view from them (I'm a customer) but as soon as I
> send
> a
Hi!
> Here at planet (AS8737) we also having problems reaching
> msn/hotmail/messenger.
>
> Seems that C&W are also having problems reaching microsoft??
> anyone else seeing high latency via L3 , especially the west coast ?
> - Keith
Same here, but also seeing a pretty loaded Telefonica peerin
one of my machines is at a colo facility that uses Level3 as a primary
upstream, and I've been noticing significant packet loss off and on for the
last hour or so. Heard from an Internap customer that L3 was having BGP
issues ... anybody have more details? I haven't heard anything substantive.
--
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 02:58:40PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> Level3 is having problems in SJC and ATL right now and they are definitely
> aware of it. Any packets that I send to them die at their ipcolo switch in
> those two markets.
>
> Level3 in LAX, DFW, CHI, DC, NYC, SEA, DEN all
Title: Genu/L3 Major Outage
Gotta
love email latencies, where the gasp for help is heard after the problem goes
away.
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Chris RanchSent:
Monday, February 23, 2004 2:58 PMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Sub
On Feb 23, 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
>
> And is it related to Telefonica leaking their peer routes to their
> transits, which seems to have happened at around the same time? :)
>
I did see only one session with L3 reaching our max-pref limit.
--
"Discouragement is an enemy of yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo David!
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David G. Andersen wrote:
> The failure seems to have started at 17:09 and ended at about 17:51 EST.
Not over for me at 15:13 PST. Getting 38% packet loss here:
so-3-3-0.edge1.SanJose1.Level3.net
They are st
I have a report that a customer can ping his destination just fine but
cannot send TCP packets to it. His traceroute also shows most every
other hop with *s.
Very strange.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 05:59:25PM -0500, David G. Andersen wrote:
>
> Anyone know what happened to L3 during the last hour
Here at planet (AS8737) we also having problems reaching
msn/hotmail/messenger.
Seems that C&W are also having problems reaching microsoft??
regards,
Arjan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: maandag 23 februari 2004 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Keith!
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> anyone else seeing high latency via L3 , especially the west coast ?
They started blocking my ping monitors in the last 15 minutes. So my
Nagios is going nuts. Otherwise TCP seem OK. Maybe
thanks all, finally got through to the NOC. It will be intersting to see
what the real cause turns out to be..
-Original Message-
From: Andy Naylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:57 AM
To: Wallace Keith
Subject: Re: possible L3 issues
L3 is having system-
Here at planet (AS8737) we also having problems reaching
msn/hotmail/messenger.
Seems that C&W are also having problems reaching microsoft??
regards,
Arjan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: maandag 23 februari 2004 23
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Stephen J. Wilcox") writes:
> > ... It would be no worse than NEW.NET or any other form of DNS
> > pollution/piracy (like the alternate root whackos), as long as it was
> > clearly labelled. ...
>
> With a local redirection you get to choose that you want it, you dont
> impo
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 05:53:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> anyone else seeing high latency via L3 , especially the west coast ?
> - Keith
Yes, I'm able to get the usual full view from them (I'm a customer) but as soon as I
send
any traffic their way it dies at the first hop into their
Level3 is having problems in SJC and ATL right now and they are definitely
aware of it. Any packets that I send to them die at their ipcolo switch in
those two markets.
Level3 in LAX, DFW, CHI, DC, NYC, SEA, DEN all seem to be running fine.
-Sean
MegaPath Networks
> -Original Message
Title: RE: possible L3 issues
Definite failures in South East US. I have a dead OC-3.
Chris
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: possib
Anyone know what happened to L3 during the last hour? They
seem to have developed an appetite for dropping packets
in San Jose for customers on the Genuity portion of their
network, but I'm curious if anyone has a slightly more
detailed explanation about the failure.
The failure seems to have st
Title: Genu/L3 Major Outage
Hello,
Anyone know what's going on with GENU/L3's failure? I have an OC-3 in South Florida up/up, but bgp peer not responding. 17:00 EST.
Thanks,
Chris
--
Chris Ranch
Director of Network Architecture
Affinity Inte
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 05:53:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> anyone else seeing high latency via L3 , especially the west coast ?
And is it related to Telefonica leaking their peer routes to their
transits, which seems to have happened at around the same time? :)
--
Richard A Steenb
anyone else seeing high latency via L3 , especially the west coast ?
- Keith
On Monday, February 23, 2004 3:37 PM [EST], Claydon, Tom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We're looking for a good replacement for fractional T1 customers with Cisco
> 1600- & 1700-series routers as their CPE. They are good routers, but the
> ongoing support costs are an issue, and we nee
Once upon a time, Scott McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The other guys _may_ be cheaper in the short run but hardware replacement
> is always like having a root canal cant speak for Netopia but I have
> dealt with Adtran ended up buying a spare DS3 CSU/DSU because of the
> experience.
Hmm, we
Whackos.. ! Where..?!
Can't see no pesky whackos, nope sir, all normal people here.
> Paul, you have no problem support the corrupt ICANN monopoly.
> The colonists and minutemen were called their day's name for
> "whackos" as well. You have the right to speak without
> being shot for your opin
> > I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators
> > if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign
> > or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number
> > of independent ISPs and network operators to install their form of
$ cat nanog-archive | grep -vE "clueful contact|research product|pMTU|RFC1918"
$
sorry.. cant find anything..!
Steve
> There was a link posted to this list about six months ago, of a presentation
> that showed how to use additive MEDs to set up traffic flows correctly
> between sites (where eac
I'm probably on my own here but I dont think its that bad an idea.. seems like a
decent way to earn some money, of course you may create some bad press and upset
some customers but doesnt everything.
At least we the operators are left in control, and even end sites always have
the option of runn
We have tens of thousands of Netopia's in service for our T-1, SDSL and ADSL
customers. Netopia has been a great company to work with. Their devices
are fairly feature packed for what is needed on an edge device. They are
missing advanced routing such as OSPF and BGP, however. The devices are
Have you tried a softnet depot maintenance agreement. This entitles you
to IOS upgrades but H/W replacement is some negotiated percentage of list
price.
The other guys _may_ be cheaper in the short run but hardware replacement
is always like having a root canal cant speak for Netopia but I have
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> I find that most admins that decides on RBL lists are well educated about
> what lists they choose to use are (the end-users are however not always
> well informed about it and that is where most of the complaints are
> coming from).
The fact that
Title: T1 Customer CPE Replacement?
Hello,
We're looking for a good replacement for fractional T1 customers with Cisco 1600- & 1700-series routers as their CPE. They are good routers, but the ongoing support costs are an issue, and we need to replace them ASAP.
Someone had mentioned severa
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:43:40 CST, John Palmer said:
> ICANN is a threat to freedom on the internet. There is no
Very true.
> technical reason why there cannot be 1,000's of TLDs
> out there, except that it foils someone's monopoly
> stranglehold on one of the few chokepoints of the internet.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randall Pigott) writes:
>
> > I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators
> > if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign
> > or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number
> > of independent ISP
Paul, you have no problem support the corrupt ICANN monopoly.
The colonists and minutemen were called their day's name for
"whackos" as well. You have the right to speak without
being shot for your opinion because those "whackos" fought
and died to make it so. Just remember that the next time
you
Paul Vixie wrote:
DNSSEC, now in its eleventh year of preproduction, is supposed to make this
kind of middletweaking more detectable, but not more preventable. I suspect
that Rodney's idea for doing DNS over IP tunnels is even more desireable than
he thinks, for reasons he may not have yet consid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randall Pigott) writes:
> I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators
> if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign
> or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number
> of independent ISPs and networ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Rubens Kuhl Jr.") writes:
> ... the DNS structure is a scalable way to locate IP addresses for names,
> but it needs trust as people can bypass it and go directly to root servers,
> gtld servers, cctld servers. The more non-standard hacks the structure get,
> the more distrust
|Is there concern to be raised by network operators over such schemes if
|deployed at the individual ISP level, particularly if such technology
|becomes widespread?
Yes: the DNS structure is a scalable way to locate IP addresses for names,
but it needs trust as people can bypass it and go directl
>
>
> That's not the point. A failed DNS lookup actually needs to fail, not get
> redirected.
Perhaps you need to change your definition of failed?
The lookup has not failed if the rcode in the reply is set to a
non-failing value.
-davidu
That's not the point. A failed DNS lookup actually needs to fail, not get
redirected.
Curtis
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Randall Pigott wrote:
>
> I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators if,
> instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign or
>
I think the main concern you have here is the advertisement of the networks from two
different ASN's to two different upstream providers. You'll have to set it up with
your upstream ISP's to allow you to advertise all of the networks, but typically it's
not a problem. You won't have an issue
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:58:39 EST, Randall Pigott said:
> Is there concern to be raised by network operators over such schemes if
> deployed at the individual ISP level, particularly if such technology
> becomes widespread?
They're your customers. This week, anyhow.
That's the big difference b
Thanks Pete, that's exactly what I was looking for :)
Sam
Pete Templin wrote:
> This might be it: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0006/confed.html
>
> (It's certainly been a great reference to me!)
>
> Sam Stickland wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There was a link posted to this list about six months ago, of
At the ISP level, there's nothing inherently wrong with this, IMO; AOL and MSN do it
already, as does Microsoft. If your customers don't like it, they are capable
of voting with their checkbooks, particularly with dial service; with cable and
DSL, the waters are a bit muddier because a cable ISP
This might be it: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0006/confed.html
(It's certainly been a great reference to me!)
Sam Stickland wrote:
Hi,
There was a link posted to this list about six months ago, of a presentation
that showed how to use additive MEDs to set up traffic flows correctly
between sites (
Hi,
There was a link posted to this list about six months ago, of a presentation
that showed how to use additive MEDs to set up traffic flows correctly
between sites (where each site is it's own BGP confederation) and showing
animation of the resulting (example) traffic flows. I remember that the
I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators if,
instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign or
their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number of
independent ISPs and network operators to install their form of DNS
redirect
He might try:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/tk80/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080093f2c.shtml
This one shows how to setup HSRP on the inside for the automatic failover
that he's looking for.
Curtis
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Ing. Hans L. Reyes wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> Your pro
55 matches
Mail list logo
