Can someone from the savvis / cw IP routing contact me offlist quickly?
Thanks,
/micah
All,
What is the new # for the Cable and Wireless support center for Internet Circuits. (800) 663-9932 is just ringing busy.
Thanks,
Brent
Brent,
You should be able to reach support at 888-638-6771. Also,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] will work. Though I believe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is being deprecated with [EMAIL PROTECTED] remaining.
Regards,
Mark Kasten
Savvis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
What is
have been servicing.
Spamhaus publishes a Top 10 World Worst Spam ISPs monthly chart
from SBL data, and for March Exodus was 7th and CW was 8th (I know
we should combine 'Exodus' into 'CW' now, but I'm afraid if we did
CW would probably beat the No1 place UUNet in volume of harbored
spammers
, with certain of their affiliates, "Cable
Wireless America" or "CWA"). As the result of this
acquisition the Cable Wireless (CW) Routing registry will be transitioned
to source SAVVIS registry. On Friday, April 9th, 2004 the Routing
Registry data would be converted to sour
of narrowing down, it
would seem that when the traffic comes at me via CW from Bell (2 of
my 3 transit providers 852 and 6539 talk to parts of Bell this way)
the problems are acute.
Looking at traceroutes between CW and Bell IP space, there does
indeed seem to be some issue between their exchange point
Hi Mark,
Thanks for responding / confirming. My transits that are CW peers
are Telus and 306/GT. I contacted them to contact you as I am not a direct
CW customer. I am just in the middle so to speak trying to understand and
work around the problem.
---Mike
At 06:38 PM 09
I have a few users exchanging data with sites inside Bell Canada call in to
complain today with various symptoms (eg. VPNs timing out, transfers taking
a long time). After a bit of narrowing down, it would seem that when the
traffic comes at me via CW from Bell (2 of my 3 transit providers
If someone from the CW European NOC can contact me offline I would
appreciate it. I have an issue that can't be escalated because the person
that answers the phone in Munich doesn't seem to understand what on earth
I'm talking about.
Thx
Thomas
According to media reports, CW is going to withdraw from U.S. markets.
No word on the of its Internet operations; the Wall Street Journal says
CW declined to say how much the new restructuring plan
will cost or explain how it plans to withdraw from the U.S.
because
Anyone else seeing an issue between cw and att somewhere near sf it looks
like.
I go from 4 ms, at the point tagged as the peer between cw and att and
1400 ms once I land on att.
THanks
a ticket (as a customer) to
their broadband division but never heard back. So, I'm not suprised. Who
knows what's going on over there. It's getting pretty annoying though.
Scott Granados wrote:
| Anyone else seeing an issue between cw and att somewhere near sf it looks
| like.
|
| I go from 4 ms
seeing an issue between cw and att somewhere near sf it looks
like.
I go from 4 ms, at the point tagged as the peer between cw and att and
1400 ms once I land on att.
THanks
It actually looked like it was farther in the att network, after cw's peer
the next hop after cw's peer.
I just tried the trace again and it seems better.
Cw seems to be handing off to att at a different point in santaclara now
not sanfrancisco which seemed to help.
Again though it looked like
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:19:58PM -0800, Scott Granados wrote:
It actually looked like it was farther in the att network, after cw's peer
the next hop after cw's peer.
I just tried the trace again and it seems better.
Cw seems to be handing off to att at a different point
Subject: Re: cw to att? issue?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:19:58PM -0800, Scott Granados wrote:
It actually looked like it was farther in the att network, after cw's
peer
the next hop after cw's peer.
I just tried the trace again and it seems better.
Cw seems to be handing off to att
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Scott Granados wrote:
Is there a good plac for a listing of the publically available
route-servers? I only knew of the oregon one.
http://www.traceroute.org/#Route Servers
--
Jon Lewis [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: cw to att? issue?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:19:58PM -0800, Scott Granados wrote:
It actually looked like it was farther in the att network, after cw's
peer
the next hop after cw's peer.
I just tried the trace again
Hi, Scott.
] Is there a good plac for a listing of the publically available
] route-servers? I only knew of the oregon one.
I keep a list in the Secure BGP Template:
http://www.cymru.com/Documents/secure-bgp-template.html
I do this so that I don't forget them. :) Updates and comments
36hrs, 4 escalations, and an OC-3 that's still down. If there are any
clueful CW IP Engineers out there, please reply offlist. Ticket
#030306-106485.
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021113/0217000178_2.html
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben --
--Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
We see instability from certain prefixes originated by CW around this
time (indeed, they seem to be showing up across many of our views). See
http://bgp.lcs.mit.edu/bgpview.cgi?time=betweenstart=2002-11-5+12%3A00%3A00end=2002-11-5+15%3A00%3A00bins=50prefix=rel=eqaspath=asrel=containorigin_as
CW is divesting itself of a lot of real estate these
days. It struck a deal with Primus concerning its
voice customers (last week), now its DSL customers to
New Edge.
Moreover, the BBC reports today that CW is cutting 3500 jobs
worldwide and also announced heavy losses. CW announced
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Peter Salus wrote:
CW is divesting itself of a lot of real estate these
days. It struck a deal with Primus concerning its
voice customers (last week), now its DSL customers to
New Edge.
New Edge is also getting their non-enterprise (i.e. T1, frac DS3)
customers. We
CW is moving any customers that are not directly connected to a CW
owned node to New Edge. I am a CW T-1 Customer in the Phoenix, AZ
market on the N3 network and we will not be moving anywhere.
--- Jonathan Disher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Peter Salus wrote:
CW
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Andy Ellifson wrote:
CW is moving any customers that are not directly connected to a CW
owned node to New Edge. I am a CW T-1 Customer in the Phoenix, AZ
market on the N3 network and we will not be moving anywhere.
We are also connected to the N3 network (2 T1's
Around 1340 EST today, all four of our CW connections (1 each of BAR-1
and 2 to both Atlanta/ALD and WashDC/DCK) flapped (physical circuit
down/up) simultaneously, followed by BGP flaps on all four about ten
minutes later.
Anyone else notice CW getting weird? Or could this be related
We are in that CW group and CW is telling
us we have to sign the contract by Friday the18th. We were only
notified Last Friday. I get concerned when things happen this quick
without a lot of backup information.
thanks
Morris Allen
VidcomNet, Inc.
What game is this? I have some gear at SJC1 and I've not heard anything.
C.
-Original Message-
From: David Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nanog
Subject: Re: CW Move
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:23:20 -0500, Moe Allen
What game is this? I have some gear at SJC1 and I've not heard anything.
http://a.mainstreet.net/mfn.tif
Postmarked early October.
It would have been hard to get out in less than one month
(we were out as of mid September).
-mark
What game is this? I have some gear at SJC1 and I've not heard anything.
They are closing that facility in November 1, and moving customers
across the street to 150 S. 1st St, or offering the alternative of
their 1735 Lundy Ave facility.
You should have recieved a snail mail (dated Sept.
Greetings,
Can anyone share experiences with either Cable Wireless (AS3561) or
Time Warner Telecom (AS4323) as upstream providers at the OC-3 level?
If so please communicate with me directly, as it may not be
appropriate for discussion here.
Thanks folks, --dmr
David Ramsey
CT
Did cw just take a huge dump?
Does cw have a status page?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Not a really great one.
http://sla.cw.net/
Dan Hollis wrote:
Did cw just take a huge dump?
Does cw have a status page?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
What did they tell you when you called/email'd their
noc?
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
Did cw just take a huge dump?
Does cw have a status page?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
/rf
: Re: cw outage?
--On Friday, August 02, 2002 1:36 PM -0700 Dan Hollis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Did cw just take a huge dump?
Does cw have a status page?
No sign of troubles here (CO):
$ traceroute www.cw.net
traceroute to webserver.ie.cw.net (204.70.133.142), 64 hops max, 40 byte
packets
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Stanley, Jon wrote:
My home systems are unreachable going through 3561-13406. All showing
history routes in my routers and everywhere via route-views. What's going
on?
I'm showing outages here:
4 190.ATM7-0.BR1.POR3.ALTER.NET (152.63.104.69) 92.217 ms 119.568 ms
Cable Wireless had an outage in South Florida approx. between
12:50 - 16:10 EDT today. Anoyone privy to details?
--Mitch
NetSide
Since Exodus is mostly a webhoster, do they have an asymmetric traffic
flow. Isn't bulk of the bandwidth is outbound from Exodus. Won't this
just increase the distance and AS count for Exodus outbound traffic,
making Exodus hosting even less desirable?
Well spotted. Everybody sees this
On 2002-03-26-12:58:09, Chris Woodfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, Exodus had arrangements with at least some of their peering
partners where in exchange for the toleration of the asymetric
traffic flow at peering points, they would honor MEDs sent to them
by said peering partners.
for private peering ( despite meeting
the requirements still listed on the peering page ):
http://bengi.exodus.net/external/peering.html
They will happily continue to sell transit at said exchanges though, and
all CW peering contacts forward to sales ( ain't that cute! ).
Should
snip
Should be interesting to see how this impacts the ability to reach
sites hosted at Exodus.
/snip
nothing complicated. just means you will utilize a transit provider to reach
Exodus hosted sites instead of direct public peer. unless you privately peer
with CW. the bottom line - it will now
I wrote:
Of course there's little point in maintaining an overlay network with the
same AS and separate peering.
^^^
I meant different AS.
-Bill
privately peer
with CW. the bottom line - it will now cost you more to reach Exodus hosted
sites...
Since Exodus is mostly a webhoster, do they have an asymetric traffic
flow. Isn't bulk of the bandwidth is outbound from Exodus. Won't this
just increase the distance and AS count for Exodus outbound
It is a free market and they can do anything they want.
If you have 5000 routes, and OC48c backbone and 3 OC3s worth of traffic at
a 2:1 ratio; peering with CW is a snap.
It clearly improved the ability of new players to enter the market for the
FCC to aprove the transfer of MCI Internet
From the sound of things, it seems that CW might have been better off migrating
AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)
I am assuming that the reasons it's not happening like this are much more political
than technical.
-C
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:18:04AM -0800, Bill Woodcock
From the sound of things, it seems that CW might have been better off migrating
AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)
I think that's what CW's engineering group thinks is happening. :-/
I will say that CW maintains a good backbone internally, even if it's
pretty
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:20:02 + (GMT)
From: Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On another angle, if enough people refuse to take CW routes
from transit preferring only peering nar, thats a
conspiracy! Good plan tho.
But if provider X becomes undesirable, I'd expect people
-Original Message-
AS3561 (InternetMCI) was once the number 1 ISP, by almost every
measure that existed. The marketplace has not been kind to CW
since they bought AS3561. Why isn't Adam Smith's Invisible Hand
rewarding CW? Is CW number 5 or 6 these days?
I think all that shows
of a book by Lao Tze before the monk was
chased off by aggressive chanters and bongo-drummers from a rival sect.
Central London is weird.
Sean.
| AS3561 (InternetMCI) was once the number 1 ISP, by almost every
| measure that existed. The marketplace has not been kind to CW
| since
At 10:18 AM 26-03-02 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
You mean Exodus are well connected and CW limit themselves which gives
longer paths and increased latency.
Longer paths definitely, increased jitter probably, increased latency
At 10:40 PM 3/26/2002 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 11:49 AM 26-03-02 -0800, Sean M. Doran wrote:
the Invisible Hand said you should talk to the face instead. Go figure.
A monk I met on the street, however, said: Even stupid companies can make
smart decisions sometimes, the trouble is that
:
SELF - EXODUS
to:
SELF - OTHER BACKBONE - CW
for a net increase in average path length. That is, of course, a gross
generalization. And not anything I'm trying to make a big point of.
-Bill
Okay, okay, when is someone going to start posting as Dean S. Moran?
-Bill
to end, the latency should improve. The majors/tier1s like ATT, UUnet,
Genuity and CW provide SLAs end-to-end *within* their ASN. They control
the pipes, they know what they can take and they don't have to worry about
some overloaded peering link. So as consolidation takes place, we should
The universal service requirement is governmental protection for
the incumbent. Or are you suggesting that the requirement for
universal service is natural, rather than regulatory?
Monopolies (there is nothing natural about them) are normal
only when they are socially established and
The universal service requirement is governmental protection for
the incumbent.
Wrong answer again. The reason the majority of natural monopolies were
established was the prolifiration of non-compatible systems.
Or are you suggesting that the requirement for universal service is natural,
and smiling. Does he work for CW?
Does he work for CW's competitors? Does he work for a government
regulatory body? Is he a lawyer? Or perhaps he just accepts
that changes in policies are the way of the world, and that fighting
against them is futile -- it is better to uncloud one's mind
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:58:40 -0500
From: Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In my experience, the odds of any given path sucking are far
greater than the odds of that path going away. Therefore I
would rather have one path which doesn't suck than two paths
which may.
!
route-map
At 07:58 PM 3/26/2002 -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:31:52PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Are we talking AS_Path attributes here? If so, all this means
is that now we don't announce OTHER BACKBONE routes to CW/EXODUS,
which we probably weren't doing
60 matches
Mail list logo
