Re: Issues with level3?
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:12:12PM +, Network Operations wrote: Anyone seeing any issues with level3? We can connect to every other IP in our Class C. When tracerouting to individual IP's, (x.x.x.50/51/52/53) we get a drop at ge-4-16.car2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.59.146.53] for 50, but 51 is fine, drop for 52, 53 is fine. Sounds like a classic problem with a member of a bundle (like a link-agg or ECMP) breaking. Level3 tends not to do anything in bundles of 2, so you might want to look elsewhere, like with your own connections to them, possibly on the reverse path. Now, please go find a blunt object and hit yourself in the head as punishment for using the words Class C in 2013 in a non-historic or ironic context. Hard. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Issues with level3?
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. Original message From: Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net Date: 01/15/2013 9:19 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Network Operations networkoperati...@etsms.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Issues with level3? On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:12:12PM +, Network Operations wrote: Anyone seeing any issues with level3? We can connect to every other IP in our Class C. When tracerouting to individual IP's, (x.x.x.50/51/52/53) we get a drop at ge-4-16.car2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.59.146.53] for 50, but 51 is fine, drop for 52, 53 is fine. Sounds like a classic problem with a member of a bundle (like a link-agg or ECMP) breaking. Level3 tends not to do anything in bundles of 2, so you might want to look elsewhere, like with your own connections to them, possibly on the reverse path. Now, please go find a blunt object and hit yourself in the head as punishment for using the words Class C in 2013 in a non-historic or ironic context. Hard. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Issues with level3?
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote: I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) -- Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066
Re: Issues with level3?
On 01/15/2013 11:12 AM, Network Operations wrote: Anyone seeing any issues with level3? We can connect to every other IP in our Class C. When tracerouting to individual IP's, (x.x.x.50/51/52/53) we get a drop at ge-4-16.car2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.59.146.53] for 50, but 51 is fine, drop for 52, 53 is fine. Thanks. It is not just you. We are seeing issue with that Level3 router/site as well. I would report it to Level3, but I don't see any need to add to my already extensive collection of one line Level3 support responses saying All is well. Nothing to see here. All is well. My guess would be that your up/down for individual IPs is a result of your testing methodology. That Level3 router/site appears to be dropping some packets to all IPs that I tested before dropping my conn there. Our response to the nearly constant Level3 issues of the past 12/18 months has been terminate them. The washington1.level3 site was unfortunately the last on my list of DCs. -- -__ David Miller dmil...@tiggee.com
Re: Issues with level3?
I tend to enjoy being rebellious... Lol From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. Original message From: Bruce H McIntosh b...@ufl.edu Date: 01/15/2013 9:32 AM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Issues with level3? On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote: I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) -- Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066
Re: Issues with level3?
On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote: I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway.
Re: Issues with level3?
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote: I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway. i only call class-c's class-c's when they come from the space GE uses.
Re: Issues with level3?
- Original Message - On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote: I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway. But, class B is not B000 and A is not A000, so is that actually true, or just a coincidence? Class C was actually 192.0.0.0-223.255.255.255 (192.0.0.0/3) -Randy
Re: Issues with level3?
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote: I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) Not to mention that it's classier. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Issues with level3?
Randy beat me.. :/ Class C 192. 0. 0. 0 = 1100... 223.255.255.255 = 1101... 110n... On 1/15/13 10:04 AM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: - Original Message - On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote: I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway. But, class B is not B000 and A is not A000, so is that actually true, or just a coincidence? Class C was actually 192.0.0.0-223.255.255.255 (192.0.0.0/3) -Randy
Re: Issues with level3?
On 1/15/13 10:04 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote: - Original Message - On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote: I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway. But, class B is not B000 and A is not A000, so is that actually true, or just a coincidence? yeah /3 not /8 class-a is the first half of the address space class-b is the next 1/4 ... Class C was actually 192.0.0.0-223.255.255.255 (192.0.0.0/3) -Randy
RE: Issues with level3?
Hi David, I'm sorry you've had so many poor experiences with Level 3 recently, but I assure you that we have acknowledged the problem and are actively working on it at present. Of general operations interest, I just saw an event notification that matches the description of the problem and our NOC, engineering team and vendor are working together to solve the problem. If you are a customer and believe you are impacted, you can reference event case ID: 6237890 as potentially being the related case. Dave -Original Message- From: David Miller [mailto:dmil...@tiggee.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:38 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Cc: networkoperati...@etsms.com Subject: Re: Issues with level3? On 01/15/2013 11:12 AM, Network Operations wrote: Anyone seeing any issues with level3? We can connect to every other IP in our Class C. When tracerouting to individual IP's, (x.x.x.50/51/52/53) we get a drop at ge-4-16.car2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.59.146.53] for 50, but 51 is fine, drop for 52, 53 is fine. Thanks. It is not just you. We are seeing issue with that Level3 router/site as well. I would report it to Level3, but I don't see any need to add to my already extensive collection of one line Level3 support responses saying All is well. Nothing to see here. All is well. My guess would be that your up/down for individual IPs is a result of your testing methodology. That Level3 router/site appears to be dropping some packets to all IPs that I tested before dropping my conn there. Our response to the nearly constant Level3 issues of the past 12/18 months has been terminate them. The washington1.level3 site was unfortunately the last on my list of DCs. -- -__ David Miller dmil...@tiggee.com
Re: Issues with level3?
joel jaeggli wrote: On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote: I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) You realize that class-c address space was only found within 192/8 e.g. if you print it in hex, C000. so not only is it historically irrelevant but you're using it wrong anyway. I only ever say class-c sized. And only when trying to communicate with the slash-whats. Joe
Re: Issues with level3?
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:52:24 -0500, Joe Maimon said: I only ever say class-c sized. And only when trying to communicate with the slash-whats. Your mistake there is trying to communicate with people who have been in networking long enough to understand class-c, but *still* haven't educated themselves out of the slash-what stage. Such people deserve to be shunned. pgpL2ksjd88sg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Issues with level3?
--- original message -- I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol --- I'm having trouble rectifying the top part of your email: b...@ufl.edu wrote: More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than slash twenty four :-) - with the bottom part of your email: -- Senior Network Engineer - University of Florida CNS/Network Services -
Re: Issues with level3?
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:52:24 -0500, Joe Maimon said: I only ever say class-c sized. And only when trying to communicate with the slash-whats. Your mistake there is trying to communicate with people who have been in networking long enough to understand class-c, but *still* haven't educated themselves out of the slash-what stage. Such people deserve to be shunned. The new guys dont know to shun these old folk. And then its too late. Joe
RE: Issues with level3 in Seattle
It might be associated with some backbone problems that internap reported starting this morning. I got the all is fixed email about an hour ago. CL -Original Message- From: Christopher Rogers [mailto:phi...@phiber.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:43 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Issues with level3 in Seattle Hey gang, just curious if anyone else has been having any issues with level3 (as3356) here in Seattle? 4 times today traffic transiting them has been blackholed for 1-2 minutes, and then recovers. No route withdrawals, etc.. just blackholing for a few minutes. Has happened 4 times now today, a few hours apart each time. I'd like to hear if anyone else has been having issues today before I call their noc... Thanks kindly, Christopher Rogers Network Engineer - real networks
RE: Issues with level3 in Seattle
Could be the AboveNet fiber they are likely using between the facilities. Bryan -Original Message- From: Chris Lowe [mailto:cl...@intelius.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:50 PM To: Christopher Rogers; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Issues with level3 in Seattle It might be associated with some backbone problems that internap reported starting this morning. I got the all is fixed email about an hour ago. CL -Original Message- From: Christopher Rogers [mailto:phi...@phiber.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:43 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Issues with level3 in Seattle Hey gang, just curious if anyone else has been having any issues with level3 (as3356) here in Seattle? 4 times today traffic transiting them has been blackholed for 1-2 minutes, and then recovers. No route withdrawals, etc.. just blackholing for a few minutes. Has happened 4 times now today, a few hours apart each time. I'd like to hear if anyone else has been having issues today before I call their noc... Thanks kindly, Christopher Rogers Network Engineer - real networks
Re: Issues with Level3 in chicago?
Robin, It's resolved now, but we had customers calling in saying they could no longer get to their sites. The traceroutes to us were dying at the servers, and a reverse trace to their public IP address was showing the trace dying a few hops past our borders. --- Nick Cappelletti n...@switchtower.org - Original Message - From: Robin Rodriguez rrodrig...@ifbyphone.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:10:32 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: Issues with Level3 in chicago? What kind of issues? I just checked two 10G connections from 350 Canal and 1905 Lunt and don't seen anything of concern. Most of my traffic stays on Level3, so I only briefly checked that I could route off Level3 from the connections. Seems fine here Robin Nicholas R. Cappelletti wrote: We just experienced some connection issues with outgoing traffic through Level3. Anyone with similar issues? I can provide some traceroutes if needed, but just wanted to see if anyone else had similar problems. --- Nick Cappelletti n...@switchtower.org -- Robin D. Rodriguez Systems Engineer Ifbyphone, Inc. Phone: (866) 250-1663 Fax: (847) 676-6553 rrodrig...@ifbyphone.com http://www.ifbyphone.com
Re: Issues with Level3 in chicago?
What kind of issues? I just checked two 10G connections from 350 Canal and 1905 Lunt and don't seen anything of concern. Most of my traffic stays on Level3, so I only briefly checked that I could route off Level3 from the connections. Seems fine here Robin Nicholas R. Cappelletti wrote: We just experienced some connection issues with outgoing traffic through Level3. Anyone with similar issues? I can provide some traceroutes if needed, but just wanted to see if anyone else had similar problems. --- Nick Cappelletti n...@switchtower.org -- Robin D. Rodriguez Systems Engineer Ifbyphone, Inc. Phone: (866) 250-1663 Fax: (847) 676-6553 rrodrig...@ifbyphone.com http://www.ifbyphone.com
Re: Issues with Level3 in chicago?
Robin, It's resolved now, but we had customers calling in saying they could no longer get to their sites. The traceroutes to us were dying at the servers, and a reverse trace to their public IP address was showing the trace dying a few hops past our borders. --- Nick Cappelletti n...@switchtower.org --- Nick Cappelletti n...@switchtower.org - Original Message - From: Robin Rodriguez rrodrig...@ifbyphone.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:10:32 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: Issues with Level3 in chicago? What kind of issues? I just checked two 10G connections from 350 Canal and 1905 Lunt and don't seen anything of concern. Most of my traffic stays on Level3, so I only briefly checked that I could route off Level3 from the connections. Seems fine here Robin Nicholas R. Cappelletti wrote: We just experienced some connection issues with outgoing traffic through Level3. Anyone with similar issues? I can provide some traceroutes if needed, but just wanted to see if anyone else had similar problems. --- Nick Cappelletti n...@switchtower.org -- Robin D. Rodriguez Systems Engineer Ifbyphone, Inc. Phone: (866) 250-1663 Fax: (847) 676-6553 rrodrig...@ifbyphone.com http://www.ifbyphone.com
RE: Issues with Level3 in chicago?
Don't know if it's related but there was a Level 3 OC48 that went down at 2:52am this morning because of a DMX issue. It's been back up since about 10am EDT though. George Roettger Netlink Services -Original Message- From: Robin Rodriguez [mailto:rrodrig...@ifbyphone.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:11 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Issues with Level3 in chicago? What kind of issues? I just checked two 10G connections from 350 Canal and 1905 Lunt and don't seen anything of concern. Most of my traffic stays on Level3, so I only briefly checked that I could route off Level3 from the connections. Seems fine here Robin
Re: Issues with Level3 in chicago?
Major convulsions visible to Sprint customers when crossing into Level3 and lots of flaps showing in route-views.oregon-ix.net for our prefixes. Calgon, take me away ... On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Nicholas R. Cappelletti n...@switchtower.org wrote: We just experienced some connection issues with outgoing traffic through Level3. Anyone with similar issues? I can provide some traceroutes if needed, but just wanted to see if anyone else had similar problems. --- Nick Cappelletti n...@switchtower.org -- mailto:n...@layer3arts.com // GoogleTalk: nrauhau...@gmail.com IM: nealrauhauser
