North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: I think I jinxed Sprint
AS5511 is France Telecom's international backbone and any problem should be reported to [email protected] They have been quite responsive recently. Give it a try. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Woodfield" <[email protected]> To: "Mathew Butler" <[email protected]> Cc: "'Roeland Meyer'" <[email protected]>; "'Sean Donelan'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 5:30 PM Subject: Re: I think I jinxed Sprint > > ...and in other news, speaking of Sprint, it appears that AS5511, a > Sprintlink customer, became a transit provider for the netblock belonging to > my ISP, CapuNet (an AboveNet customer), and probably many other AboveNet > blocks, for about 15 minutes this morning... > > core1.wdc>sh ip bgp 64.50.178.19 > BGP routing table entry for 64.50.160.0/19, version 9657504 > Paths: (2 available, best #1, advertised over IBGP) > 1239 5511 6461 7380 > 144.228.242.51 from 144.228.242.51 > Origin IGP, metric 55, localpref 50000, valid, external, best > Community: 6993:1239 65000:10913 > 1239 5511 6461 7380, (received-only) > 144.228.242.51 from 144.228.242.51 > Origin IGP, metric 55, localpref 100, valid, external > > [[email protected] src]$ traceroute 64.50.178.19 > traceroute to cd-178-19.ra30.dc.capu.net (64.50.178.19): 1-30 hops, 38 > byte packets > 1 internap-wtcb-gw.e0.wdc.pnap.net (216.52.126.188) 1.05 ms 0.932 ms > 2.76 ms > 2 border2.s3-0.wtc-2.wdc.pnap.net (216.52.127.197) 5.34 ms 3.79 ms > 5.59 ms > 3 core1.fe0-0-fenet1.wdc.pnap.net (216.52.127.1) 5.33 ms 5.52 ms 9.60 > ms > 4 sl-gw2-rly-6-1-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.184.89) 5.14 ms 6.67 ms > 5.66 ms > 5 sl-bb21-rly-3-3.sprintlink.net (144.232.14.45) 8.17 ms 6.74 ms 5.59 > ms > 6 sl-bb20-pen-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.241) 8.16 ms 9.58 ms > 8.43 ms > 7 sl-bb20-stk-12-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.46) 67.9 ms 67.3 ms > 70.9 ms > 8 sl-gw28-stk-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.4.110) 67.8 ms 67.4 ms 68.1 > ms > 9 * * * > 10 * * * > 11 P6-0.STKBB2.Stockton.opentransit.net (193.251.129.58) * * 1242 ms > (ttl=247!) > 12 * * * > 13 * * * > 14 * * * > 15 * * * > 16 > > -Chris Woodfield > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 02:44:00AM -0800, Mathew Butler wrote: > > > > I thought that routers were supposed to send ICMP Source-Quench messages > > when they got congested? > > > > Or is this something that the proponents of QoS didn't decide on? > > > > -Mat > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:58 AM > > To: 'Sean Donelan'; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: I think I jinxed Sprint > > > > The internet is a lot less forgiving wrt outages then the telco. The telco > > can have a circut outage, re-route to another circuit, and the customer > > never sees an availability gap. Also, a total outage, during reduced traffic > > times, and no customer ever misses a dial-tone because they aren't trying to > > get one, is not an outage in telco terms. The internet, on the other hand, > > may have similar issues, unless we start talking streaming video, streaming > > audio, and voice over IP. In those cases, packet losses can make a serious > > mess of things. Also, congestion is treated differently between the two > > systems. Telcos will actually return a fast-busy when a switch becomes > > congested. The internet simply starts dropping packets. You can actually > > hear the latter when using www.dialpad.com or MS-Netmeeting (both of which, > > I use extensively). > > -- > --------------------------- > Christopher A. Woodfield [email protected] > > PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|