On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 17:17, Blake Pfankuch wrote:
It seems highly unlikely that a train derailment yesterday caused major network
issues today.
Have you ever seen cleanup efforts after a major accident. Cleanup
usually involves more backhoes, a
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 17:17, Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> It seems highly unlikely that a train derailment yesterday caused major
> network issues today.
Have you ever seen cleanup efforts after a major accident. Cleanup
usually involves more backhoes, and other major equipment, than a
normal wel
I have heard this story several times. The train derailment was yesterday in
New York unless it has not made it to news.google.com on a search for train
derail. Issues did not start until 1030 MST. It seems highly unlikely that a
train derailment yesterday caused major network issues today.
It seems that there was fiber cut because of train derailment around NY
area.
Alex
Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> Any word on the actual cause of the issue?
>
> From: Derek Bodner [mailto:subscribedli...@derekbodner.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 11:53 AM
> To: Blake Pfankuch
> Cc: Jon Wolberg
Skywing wrote:
> Of course, in much of the US, "vote with your feet" on residential ISP
> service might as well be as realistic advice as "pack up and move to a
> different city". [Perhaps not in the OP's case, though, if they are
> fortunate. Which it seems like they might be.]
It isn't dif
Of course, in much of the US, "vote with your feet" on residential ISP service
might as well be as realistic advice as "pack up and move to a different city".
[Perhaps not in the OP's case, though, if they are fortunate. Which it seems
like they might be.]
- S
-Original Message-
From
Matthew Black wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:53:18 +
> Martin List-Petersen wrote:
>>
>> The problem is, and this was stated by the original poster, that the
>> lads off-shore he deals with have no clue and simply stick to the
>> script. No intention of looking what the real problem is. And
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
IMHO, this is exactly what service providers love to hear in order for
them not to be forth coming.
regards,
/virendra
Matthew Petach wrote:
> On 12/28/08, Blake Pfankuch wrote:
>> Any word on the actual cause of the issue?
>
> Given the lurking
>>> In practice, we realized that enabling IS-ISv6 on interfaces
>>> already running IS-ISv4 was problematic without MT pre-
>>> configured.
>>> Those links surely lost IS-IS adjacency which threatened stability
>>> of the network.
>> Yup, that is the rub: if rolling out your v6 routing impacts you
Steven King wrote:
> We saw our bandwidth drop on our Level3 OC-48 to about half of what we
> were doing. We had to stop announcing our subnets to Level3 to get
> traffic to fail over properly throughout the world. We have a ticket
> open with Level3's NOC but have not received word on what happene
We saw our bandwidth drop on our Level3 OC-48 to about half of what we
were doing. We had to stop announcing our subnets to Level3 to get
traffic to fail over properly throughout the world. We have a ticket
open with Level3's NOC but have not received word on what happened or
when to expect a resol
marco wrote:
From what I heard, it was some some malfunction with a router in
Washington D.C. which terminated a 100GB bundle from Paris. It was
carring about 50GB at the time of the failure.
Not sure why routes within the US would be effected.
We connect to level3 in Ashburn/DC and saw traf
On 12/28/08, Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> Any word on the actual cause of the issue?
Given the lurking presence of wannabe press vultures here, I
doubt you'll see anything forthcoming from the technical folks
about what actually happened. This is not to say that people
haven't been informed of the is
Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> Any word on the actual cause of the issue?
>
> From: Derek Bodner [mailto:subscribedli...@derekbodner.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 11:53 AM
> To: Blake Pfankuch
> Cc: Jon Wolberg; Jason Cheslock; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Level 3 issues
>
> Looks like most pro
Matthew Black wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:53:18 +
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
The problem is, and this was stated by the original poster, that the
lads off-shore he deals with have no clue and simply stick to the
script. No intention of looking what the real problem is. And that
problem
Any word on the actual cause of the issue?
From: Derek Bodner [mailto:subscribedli...@derekbodner.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 11:53 AM
To: Blake Pfankuch
Cc: Jon Wolberg; Jason Cheslock; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 issues
Looks like most providers here in the east coast are rout
Looks like most providers here in the east coast are routing through level3
again, and I'm not seeing any packet loss or latency anymore.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> Seems to be normalizing here in Colorado as well, however still having
> occasional packet loss to NY.
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:53:18 +
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
The problem is, and this was stated by the original poster, that the
lads off-shore he deals with have no clue and simply stick to the
script. No intention of looking what the real problem is. And that
problem lies not in the call
Seems to be normalizing here in Colorado as well, however still having
occasional packet loss to NY.
-Original Message-
From: Jon Wolberg [mailto:j...@defenderhosting.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 11:40 AM
To: Jason Cheslock
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 issues
Confirme
Confirmed here as well.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Cheslock"
To: "marco"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 1:35:45 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Level 3 issues
According to L3, this issue should be fixed and we should start seeing
> the tr
2008/12/28 marco
> Paul wrote:
> > Same issue here from Chicago and Montreal. Seems anything routing
> > through Washington.Level3 is going to null. The rest of the level3
> > network seems to be ok.
> > 6 ae-32-52.ebr2.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.62) 0.976 ms 10.344
> > ms 0.866 ms
> > 7
According to L3, this issue should be fixed and we should start seeing
> the traffic normalizing.
> Can anyone confirm?
Here in Richmond Virginia, everything seems to be back to normal now.
Traffic coming from my Comcast connection can get through L3 now.
7 11 ms 13 ms 11 ms te-0-3-0-0-cr01.
Paul wrote:
> Same issue here from Chicago and Montreal. Seems anything routing
> through Washington.Level3 is going to null. The rest of the level3
> network seems to be ok.
> 6 ae-32-52.ebr2.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.62) 0.976 ms 10.344
> ms 0.866 ms
> 7 ae-5.ebr2.Chicago2.Level3.net (4.
I'm showing significant latency and loss over my L3 stuff.
interetpulse.net showing the same thing too, seems to be a substantial
problem.
Pierre-Henri wrote:
marco a écrit :
is anyone having issues with Level3?
hi,
theplanet.com and many websites (cnn.com ; amazon.com ; ... ) have not
Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> Ive got connection issues from Colorado to new York on level3 that have been
> restored, but still nothing from Chicago to Colorado, and way too many other
> places to list. Anyone have a ticket number with level3?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre-Henri [mail
Same issue here from Chicago and Montreal. Seems anything routing
through Washington.Level3 is going to null. The rest of the level3
network seems to be ok.
6 ae-32-52.ebr2.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.62) 0.976 ms 10.344
ms 0.866 ms
7 ae-5.ebr2.Chicago2.Level3.net (4.69.140.194) 1.245 ms
Ive got connection issues from Colorado to new York on level3 that have been
restored, but still nothing from Chicago to Colorado, and way too many other
places to list. Anyone have a ticket number with level3?
-Original Message-
From: Pierre-Henri [mailto:phac...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunda
Ahh.. yes seeing that now here from Toronto ON - didn't see this issue when the
original poster sent the first message... it's now happening here too...
Shutting down their session until something looks "better"
-Original Message-
From: Pierre-Henri [mailto:phac...@gmail.com]
Sent: Decem
marco a écrit :
is anyone having issues with Level3?
hi,
theplanet.com and many websites (cnn.com ; amazon.com ; ... ) have not
been accessible from France (Orange, home connection) for about 30 minutes.
Don't know if there is a link with your question, but it's strange...
Pierre-Henri
marco a écrit :
is anyone having issues with Level3?
hi,
theplanet.com and many websites (cnn.com ; amazon.com ; ... ) have not
been accessible from France (Orange, home connection) for about 30 minutes.
Don't know if there is a link with your question, but .
Pierre-Henri
jajog...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes sir.
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: marco [mailto:ma...@zero11.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:59 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Level 3 issues
>>
>> is anyone having issues with Level3?
>>
>
>
do you have any more details?
Yes. We just experienced an outage in Philadelphia. We shut down the
circuit pending further investigation.
On Dec 28, 2008, at 12:58 PM, marco wrote:
is anyone having issues with Level3?
http://www.internetpulse.net/ (if you can get to it). Does not look
pretty for L3.
I can't get to most web sites if I go via Level3 (Cleveland, OH).
Ping/traceroute look good though.
marco wrote:
is anyone having issues with Level3?
What country, location, where you fed from??
-Original Message-
From: marco [mailto:ma...@zero11.com]
Sent: December 28, 2008 12:59 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Level 3 issues
is anyone having issues with Level3?
is anyone having issues with Level3?
In practice, we realized that enabling IS-ISv6 on interfaces
already running IS-ISv4 was problematic without MT pre-
configured.
Those links surely lost IS-IS adjacency which threatened stability
of the network.
Yup, that is the rub: if rolling out your v6 routing impacts your v4
routing you are
>> as one who has been burned when topologies are not congruent, i gotta
>> ask. if i do not anticipate v4 and v6 having different topologies,
>> and all my devices are dual-capable, would you still recommend mt for
>> other than future-proofing?
>
>In practice, we realized that enabling IS-ISv6 o
>>> ... not to mention that fact that IS-IS is, IMHO, a much nicer IGP to
work with.
>>
>> WRT that last sentence, that is an almost religious debate I was trying
to
>> avoid starting ... :)
>>
>Well IMHO it's a very important point to consider. This is a great chance
to switch your IGP, if you've
Wondering about the availability of 100mb connectivity in Macomb county (Clinton Twp) Michigan.
Please reply off-list.
39 matches
Mail list logo
