North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or AT&T?

  • From: Michael Airhart
  • Date: Wed Aug 08 17:34:21 2007
  • Authentication-results: rtp-dkim-1; [email protected]; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
  • Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=557; t=1186603593; x=1187467593; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; [email protected]; z=From:=20Michael=20Airhart=20<[email protected]> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Problems=20with=20either=20Cisco.com=20or=20AT&T? |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Schliesser,=20Benson=22=20<[email protected]>; bh=h5fFmrbqxk81chJpFJXZOyMYJ2jdH2iDcheDq5LUDMk=; b=cM4k/29SlsSjcGmF6nIoY+ZmqXQBmDsySAKwA4BqVVpEBPBR6VBxBf+cFaUgVDs9pMpM7fsc LpBe8yrqj+lrQQkgORHS5CKFpmz0gs6rKiGSe0VCp6xirHfZteo2wd3E;

I can't speak for Cisco or Cisco IT, but as evidenced by this email, at least part of our connectivity is up.

No doubt someone official is looking at it as we speak. (I'll just lurk Nanog to get the skinny)..





A brief look at routeviews shows www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25)
originating from AS109 (Cisco) and transiting via AS7132 (AT&T/SBC) and
AS7018 (AT&T). Thus I suspect this is an issue with AS109 (Cisco) and
not with their providers. Though, I do feel wrong using the plural
"providers" in this case...

-Benson
>