|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: ATM Question
We were seeing something similar yesterday (and yup - it's still there today). We also noted that if you turn on the record-route options, then your problem will disappear (I suspect packet options may cause delivery to be ok - though while the RR option helps, DF doesnt, but "timestamp" will). We're not seeing packet loss in any other scenario. I noticed, suspiciously, that there is always a very "hockey toothed" (every other packet) pattern in the lossage (load balancing onto a botched circuit?). Things I've played with: * size 50% (tried 800, 1200, 2500) * DF 50% * RR 100% * pattern seems to be generally 50% * timestamp 100% * TOS 50% We've opened up a case with cisco ... seems pretty bizarre, but could it be the ATM switch? As long as we're not using the source address of the ATM network - things are fine (e.g. sourcing off of the loopback, going one hop back, etc). - Tom On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Richard Inhand wrote: > Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 04:50:10 -0700 (PDT) > From: Richard Inhand <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: ATM Question > > > I'm currently looking into a weird problem at an ATM > peering point on the West Coast, when I ping from my > peer router to any of my peers I get some but not > total packet loss, when I ping from one router back or > use the loopback interface as source things are fine. > Whereas, with all my other ATM peering point routers, > for example at MAE-EAST I can ping my peers cleanly > from the same router. This isn't (to my knowledge) > affecting traffic just wondering why this strange > phenomenon should occur only in the one place. > > Any body else had any similar problems? > > Richard Hand > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! > http://photos.yahoo.com/ >
|