Level3 (AS3549) BGP contact off-list
Hi, Currently experiencing trouble with BGP session between 49463 and 3549. Relevant router: cdg2.gblx.net Can you please contact me off-list for resolution ? Thanks
Re: Cisco warranty
On 04/04/2014 01:51, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Brandon Ewing nicot...@warningg.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:26:58PM -0400, Michael Brown wrote: Did you purchase SMARTnet when you bought the device? If you didn't, you're probably SOL. This is not true. Cisco provides a limited lifetime warranty on hardware purchased from them or an authorized reseller, with our without SmartNet. On some: not all their hardware, they offer limited lifetime warranty. Lifetime is the exception to the rule: many of their components are 90 days or 1 year. The limited bit is also important --- they have restrictions in fine print. It's strongly recommended you buy their SmartNet, if you want their reps to treat you reasonably and make efforts to fulfill your paper warranty. Getting the manufacturer rep to actually honor the paper warranty and allow you an RMA, when there is no paid support is another thing altogether. May require a great deal of persistence on your part, As in continuing to contact Cisco and refusing to take NO as an acceptable answer to your RMA request. Or it may just not happen My device is indeed supposedly covered by a lifetime warranty. Since I'm still in the timeframe of less than 5 years after EOS...it should be good...should. Never experienced such a bad service from Juniper or 3COM/H3C/HP
Cisco warranty
Hi, I bought a C3750G-12S which is now end of sale on cisco website. This device is now defective. Since I bought it from a reseller and not directly from cisco, cisco is refusing to take it under warranty and tells me to have the reseller take care of it. The reseller doesnt wan't to hear about this device since it is end of sale. According to cisco website, end of sale means the device is still covered for 5 years. My question is: Is it normal for my supplier to refuse to take it under warranty ? Is there (from your experience) a chance I might get cisco to deal with it ? Thanks Laurent
Re: need your suggestion about switch
On 07/11/2009 18:21, Deric Kwok wrote: Hi I am requested to get not brand list switch how can I test it? any software or methods eg: reliable speed or any need Thank you so much Hi, Can you please make sentences that make sense ? Are you seeking for advice or help ? I think yes. So the least you can do is ease the pain of people reading your emails. Thanks
Unable to reach security.debian.org through an HurricaneElectric IPv6 pipe
Hi, I'm currently unable to reach security.debian.org (2001:8d8:2:1:6564:a62:0:2) through IPv6. donald:~# traceroute -M tcpconn -p 80 wieck.debian.org -n -6 traceroute to wieck.debian.org (2001:8d8:2:1:6564:a62:0:2), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets 1 2001:7a8:820:1::1 0.170 ms 0.151 ms 0.126 ms 2 2001:7a8:820::1 0.317 ms 0.274 ms 0.515 ms 3 2001:7a8:1:9ff2::1 1.753 ms 1.745 ms 1.724 ms 4 2001:7a8:0:ff22::1 2.384 ms 2.374 ms 2.355 ms 5 2001:7a8:1:91::1 48.524 ms 48.530 ms 48.495 ms 6 2001:7a8:0:ffe1::fffe 10.203 ms 10.345 ms 10.270 ms 7 2001:7f8:4::2170:1 10.457 ms 10.390 ms 10.572 ms 8 2001:8d8:0:2::6 20.535 ms 19.820 ms 20.003 ms 9 2001:8d8:0:2::a 19.953 ms 20.517 ms 20.458 ms 10 2001:8d8:0:2::12 22.901 ms 2001:8d8:0:2::2a 22.333 ms 22.707 ms 11 2001:8d8:0:4::11 23.908 ms 2001:8d8:0:4::10 23.388 ms 2001:8d8:0:5::11 23.338 ms 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * donald:~# traceroute -M tcpconn -p 25 wieck.debian.org -n -6 traceroute to wieck.debian.org (2001:8d8:2:1:6564:a62:0:2), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets 1 2001:7a8:820:1::1 0.185 ms 0.147 ms 0.128 ms 2 2001:7a8:820::1 0.435 ms 0.417 ms 0.396 ms 3 2001:7a8:1:9ff2::1 1.633 ms 1.860 ms 1.849 ms 4 2001:7a8:0:ff22::1 2.317 ms 2.305 ms 2.287 ms 5 2001:7a8:1:91::1 108.936 ms 108.943 ms 108.926 ms 6 2001:7a8:0:ffe1::fffe 10.407 ms 10.354 ms 10.305 ms 7 2001:7f8:4::2170:1 14.970 ms 15.158 ms 15.114 ms 8 2001:8d8:0:2::6 20.555 ms 20.161 ms 19.901 ms 9 2001:8d8:0:2::a 19.862 ms 19.425 ms 20.330 ms 10 2001:8d8:0:2::2a 22.282 ms 2001:8d8:0:2::12 23.129 ms 2001:8d8:0:2::2a 22.314 ms 11 2001:8d8:0:4::10 23.035 ms 2001:8d8:0:5::10 22.910 ms 2001:8d8:0:4::10 23.190 ms 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * -- lca...@unix-scripts.info
Re: Unable to reach security.debian.org through an HurricaneElectric IPv6 pipe
On 29/10/2009 12:20, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Laurent CARON wrote: I'm currently unable to reach security.debian.org (2001:8d8:2:1:6564:a62:0:2) through IPv6. Judging from the traceroute, it seems that Hurricane Electric and OneAndOne are peering, but perhaps there's a problem between Nerim and one of the other two? My traceroutes reach wieck, but the Nerim sTLA (2001:7a8::/32) isn't in my routing tables. Have you contacted Nerim NOC? Thanks for your input. I'm gonna check with HE as I already checked with Nerim NOC. Thanks
Re: Unable to reach security.debian.org through an HurricaneElectric IPv6 pipe
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:52:07PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: It helps if you mention your own IP address. Using 2001:7a8:820:1::1 instead, I get this in the reverse direction (from wieck): My desktop's IP: 2001:7a8:820:1::31 traceroute to 2001:7a8:820:1::1 (2001:7a8:820:1::1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 vl-121.gw-dists-a.bs.ka.oneandone.net (2001:8d8:2:1::1) 1.530 ms 1.614 ms 1.709 ms 2 te-1-2.bb-c.bs.kae.de.oneandone.net (2001:8d8:0:5::1) 1.116 ms 1.169 ms 1.104 ms 3 te-4-2.bb-c.act.fra.de.oneandone.net (2001:8d8:0:2::11) 3.479 ms 3.540 ms 3.591 ms 4 te-1-1.bb-c.nkf.ams.nl.oneandone.net (2001:8d8:0:2::9) 10.139 ms 10.200 ms 10.247 ms 5 te-1-2.bb-c.the.lon.gb.oneandone.net (2001:8d8:0:2::5) 17.257 ms 17.321 ms 17.377 ms 6 linx.he.net (2001:7f8:4::1b1b:1) 17.281 ms 16.399 ms 16.456 ms 7 gige-g0-1.tserv17.lon1.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:0:a3::2) 16.546 ms 16.562 ms 16.512 ms 8 * * * [and nothing more] A traceroute from 2001:14b0:200:6::4 looks similar, despite taking a different entry point into HE: traceroute to 2001:7a8:820:1::1 (2001:7a8:820:1::1) from 2001:14b0:200:6::4, 30 hops max, 24 byte packets 1 2001:14b0:200:6::3 (2001:14b0:200:6::3) 27.324 ms 29.593 ms 26.593 ms 2 2a01:1e8:2:3::1 (2a01:1e8:2:3::1) 26.827 ms 26.772 ms * 3 2a01:1e8:2:4::1 (2a01:1e8:2:4::1) 30.685 ms 30.684 ms 30.767 ms 4 de-cix.he.net (2001:7f8::1b1b:0:1) 31.821 ms 35.31 ms 33.465 ms 5 gige-g0-1.tserv18.fra1.ipv6.he.net (2001:470:0:a5::2) 33.738 ms 33.368 ms 30.792 ms 6 * * * So this seems to be something beyound our (that is, Debian's) control, assuming that 2001:7a8:820:1::1 is as good as the IP address you've actually been assigned. This is the IP of one of my BGP routers.
Re: Is 213.215.28.0/23 (AS 49463) announced through AS 12670 and AS 13193
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 04:04:33PM +0200, Laurent CARON wrote: Hi, I did set-up this netblock behind two pipes. One on AS13193 (which is working flawlessy), and ahother on AS12670 (which I doubt of). Can please any of you tell me if from your location 213.215.28.0 is reachable through AS12670 ? Hi, It seems the netblock 213.215.28.0/23 is now reachable through AS13193 and AS12670. Thanks Laurent
Re: Is 213.215.28.0/23 (AS 49463) announced through AS 12670 and AS 13193
On 07/09/2009 19:01, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Yup. Compare this current radb lookup - sur...@frodo 09:53:21 :~$ whois -h whois.radb.net 213.215.28.0/23 route: 213.215.28.0/23 descr: LNC-1 origin: AS49463 mnt-by: NERIM-MNT changed:boua...@nerim.net 20090907 source: RIPE with the previous one - sur...@frodo 19:59:40 :~$ whois -h whois.radb.net 213.215.28.0 route: 213.215.0.0/18 descr: NERIM-213-215 origin: AS13193 holes: 213.215.38.0/24 mnt-by: NERIM-MNT changed:boua...@nerim.net 20020827 changed:boua...@nerim.net 20081107 source: RIPE A hole in 213.215.0.0/18 was missing and has been added by the 1st ISP.
Re: hi, a question related to AS 49463
On 06/09/2009 15:56, Bin Dai wrote: Hi: I am interested in ur question to nanog about doubting whether AS 49463 is reachable thourgh AS 12670. in ur case, AS 49463 is multihomed. what you want to do,if i am right, is that you wanna make the following things happen: the 213.215.28.0/23 is reachable both through AS 12670 and AS 13193. And like what u said, you are certain that that prefix is announced to AS 12670. So all the customers of AS 12670 should be ok to reach that prefix. Am I right? I have a question: if the link between 13193 and 4943 fails, what will happen? will the guy: Nicolas DEFFAYET lose the reachability to AS 49463? Hi, Since i do have direct connectivity to 13193 and 12670, if my prefix is correctly announced through both ISP, the failure of 1 ISP should allow me to still be reachable and reach the outside world. Laurent
Is 213.215.28.0/23 (AS 49463) announced through AS 12670 and AS 13193
Hi, I did set-up this netblock behind two pipes. One on AS13193 (which is working flawlessy), and ahother on AS12670 (which I doubt of). Can please any of you tell me if from your location 213.215.28.0 is reachable through AS12670 ? Thanks Laurent
Re: Is 213.215.28.0/23 (AS 49463) announced through AS 12670 and AS 13193
On 05/09/2009 16:30, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: Completel AS12670 don't announce your route 213.215.28.0/23 to their peers so your route is only visible through Nerim AS13193. Did you announce your route 213.215.28.0/23 to Completel AS12670 ? Hi, I'm of course announcing it to their upstream router. If their upstream router actually forwards it to its neighbors is another question...which I can't unfortunately not answer. But I guess the announce is not propagated outside of their network... Thanks for your help. Laurent
