North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Website contact for www.cisco.com

  • From: Burton, Chris
  • Date: Mon Sep 27 19:59:32 2004

	All very true; but I prefer take away from everything
complicated and make it simple (This is my opinion, YMMV).  Since
nothing in my environment has changed, no broken equipment or software
issue, and all the routes were correct (including CEF/dCEF) and I was
able to access Cisco's site from several other IP address from my
network as well as outside networks I made a logical assumption (or at
least I think it was logical) that it was "possible" that Cisco blocking
this one particular /32. I still do not know the answer to this question
as by the time Cisco replied to me with a canned answer access to
Cisco's website from that IP address was working again.

Chris Burton
Network Engineer
Walt Disney Internet Group - Network Services

The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential,
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If
the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee
or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please contact Walt Disney Internet Group at
206-664-4000.

-----Original Message-----
From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 1:53 PM
To: joe mcguckin
Cc: Burton, Chris; [email protected]; Temkin, David; NANOG
Subject: Re: Website contact for www.cisco.com

joe mcguckin wrote:

>Or CEF/DCEF if a linecard 'loses' a forwarding entry.
>
>  
>
Would that affect just one /32 out of a /22 if the subnet is not 
directly connected?
(it probably would if you run some kind of ACL's that require flow state

to be retained, but other than that, it should not)
Obviously load balancers count as content switching devices which can 
also cause random brokenness.

Pete

>On 9/26/04 1:03 PM, "Petri Helenius" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Burton, Chris wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I also ran into this problem yesterday, I contacted Cisco and
>>>they said that they were not block any of my addresses or ranges
which I
>>>found to be strange since from what I could tell out of an entire /22
>>>only one IP address was affected.  As of around 0500 PDT this morning
I
>>>was able to access Cisco's website again though.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>"Content switching", when partially broken, can do fancy effects.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>