This 100-line document contains 62% of what you need to know to avoid
annoying 10,000 people in your email to the NANOG list. It also contains
pointers to another 23%. Please take 5 minutes to read it before
you post [again].
General Information
===
About NANOG:http://
Crooks, Sam wrote:
I'm considering use of AT&T / Verizon / Sprint WWAN services and the
Cisco 3G router interface cards/integrated module in C880 routers for
primary or backup WAN network connectivity for routers.
I'm looking for information from users of these services on the
following:
I ha
I am 100 percent with you on this. Some techs arrive to our data center with no
tools and they have the same response I just thought it was a simple install. I
know they have different levels for techs but you should not have to wait
another couple of days to complete a install. They should se
What is it about the bloody telcos. You want to spend money, but yet you
can't reach the right people to get your questions answered or schedule
the service.
Gah.
I experienced this recently, trying to have some inside wiring work done
at my house. They rolled a tech, but then he claimed he "
I can now get to .com ok, but .net net traces ok but the site doesn't come up
in a browser and tr does work. So they have fixed part of the problem, at last
from here.
C:\Documents and Settings\netman>tracert level3.net
Tracing route to level3.net [4.68.95.11]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1
> # traceroute level3.net
When diagnosing things like this try using the IP address and tcptraceroute or
some similar tool. NOT plain old traceroute and a DNS name. Especially when
writing to a list with participants as technically involved as those on NANOG.
scott
I don't think you will ever get a "true" answer, maybe someone just
forgot to re-reg the domain ;)
-Original Message-
From: Niels Bakker [mailto:niels=na...@bakker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:13 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level3 funkiness
* s...@infiltrated.net (J. Oq
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 06:37:36PM +0100, Rod Beck wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I never said that protected LAN PHY 10 GigE was more expensive than
> two diversely routed waves.
Strange, the e-mail from you that I quoted specifically said:
> Bottom line is that it will cost more than two diversely
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Alex Thurlow wrote:
> Same result from Cogent in Texas. Dying at ge-6-2.hsa1.Denver1.Level3.net
>
> # traceroute level3.net
I didn't know that an unreachable A record indicated that (3) was down :-)
http://www.level3.com/lookingglass/
I can re
* s...@infiltrated.net (J. Oquendo) [Wed 15 Apr 2009, 22:31 CEST]:
Yes discovered that then thought about reposting full traceroute
feeds. It was the *.com I can get through now from 4 out of like
8 addresses. Actually on the phone with Level3 right now
Wait, what? Are you seriously calling Le
As Brandon had stated earlier:
Out of Chicago on RCN onto L3.
Tracing route to level3.net [63.211.236.36]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 4 ms 1 ms 10.10.10.1 (My home)
2 7 ms 9 ms 8 ms 10.20.0.1(RCN interior network)
310 ms 8 ms10 ms vl2.aggr1.chgo.
Listen the two are different, level3.com, and level3.net, the two are
colo'd at the same place, thus the reason for the Denver "dying" end
point. It's .net as you can see; try surfing to 4.6 8.95.11 yes,
4.68.95.28, no...It's just how the DNS PTR for the box is set. It has
nothing to do with the
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> 2 dvr-edge-05.inet.qwest.net (72.165.27.181) 27.696 ms 27.688 ms 28.022
> ms
> 3 dvr-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.10.89) 28.010 ms 28.001 ms 27.990
> ms
> 4 * * 67.14.2.89 (67.14.2.89) 50.773 ms
> 5 xe-8-2-0.edge2.dallas3.level3.net
maybe host problem?
I can reach to www.level3.com, but not www.level3.net.
It seems both are belonging to same subnet.
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> In Chicago, traceroutes are dying in the same place (Denver). Peered out of
> 350 Cermak.
>
> -brandon
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Charles M
Yea Jason, level3.net is unreachableI am sure it is filtering ICMP,
or blocking certain ports, sessions, or services, dude. The level3.net
server is used for other purposes as stated in the previous thread, so
necessarily it is not a question of destination unknown, DNS, or access
for that mat
After much hassle and several false starts and disconnects in getting in
touch with the right department in Sprint, I spoke to a woman in
technical support in the group that supports 3G data cards.
She said:
- public IP addresses are used
- static IP available for $3/mo additional
- maximum 3
2 dvr-edge-05.inet.qwest.net (72.165.27.181) 27.696 ms 27.688 ms 28.022 ms
3 dvr-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.10.89) 28.010 ms 28.001 ms 27.990 ms
4 * * 67.14.2.89 (67.14.2.89) 50.773 ms
5 xe-8-2-0.edge2.dallas3.level3.net (4.68.63.53) 51.120 ms
xe-8-1-0.edge2.dallas3.level3.net
Same result from Cogent in Texas. Dying at ge-6-2.hsa1.Denver1.Level3.net
# traceroute level3.net
traceroute to 63.211.236.36 (63.211.236.36), 30 hops max, 46 byte packets
1 gi1-1.ccr01.aus02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.4.37) 0.493 ms 0.393
ms 0.496 ms
2 te4-4.ccr01.aus01.atlas.cogentco.c
Tracing to www.level3.net (4.68.95.28) dies at 4.68.94.1 for me as well.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Vance [mailto:ava...@hq.speakeasy.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:55 PM
To: Dave Larter; J. Oquendo; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level3 funkiness
I'm not having any issues from e
Leland E. Vandervort wrote:
Managed to get to the bottom of it, and it was indeed a SIP User-Agent
brute-force attempt. Interestingly, though, that your mail mentions
specifically verizon... the majority of the remote addresses during this
brute-force attempt were also behind verizon... coincid
Yea the .com addr is on the same subnet, unless it has been carved into
a /30.
Jay Murphy
IP Network Specialist
NM Department of Health
ITSD - IP Network Operations
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
Bus. Ph.: 505.827.2851
"We move the information that moves your world."
-Original Messag
destination unreachable on qwest out of St.Paul/Minneapolis.
Level3.com does work.
Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer
-Original Message-
From: J. Oquendo [mailto:s...@infiltrated.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Level3 funkiness
Anyone else expe
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Murphy, Jay, DOH wrote:
> Have you been able to in the past?? The site is used for other purposes,
> and the front end site that you will see is www.level3.com, not net. So
> which one?
>
>
> Jay Murphy
> IP Network Specialist
> NM Department of Health
> ITSD - IP Networ
In Chicago, traceroutes are dying in the same place (Denver). Peered out of
350 Cermak.
-brandon
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
> Can't get to level3.net 63.211.236.36 or www.level3.net 4.68.95.28 from
> Pittsburgh either and I peer directly with level3 with a full BGP fe
> -Original Message-
> From: J. Oquendo [mailto:s...@infiltrated.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:36 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Level3 funkiness
>
>
> Anyone else experience sporadic funkiness via
> Level3? I can't even reach the main website from who
> knows how many net
Have you been able to in the past?? The site is used for other purposes,
and the front end site that you will see is www.level3.com, not net. So
which one?
Jay Murphy
IP Network Specialist
NM Department of Health
ITSD - IP Network Operations
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
Bus. Ph.: 505.827.2851
>-Original Message-
>From: J. Oquendo [mailto:s...@infiltrated.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 15:36
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Level3 funkiness
>
>
>Anyone else experience sporadic funkiness via
>Level3? I can't even reach the main website from who
>knows how many networks I've
Yes, I die on your hop14 with TWTelecom
-Original Message-
From: J. Oquendo [mailto:s...@infiltrated.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Level3 funkiness
Anyone else experience sporadic funkiness via
Level3? I can't even reach the main website from
Can't get to level3.net 63.211.236.36 or www.level3.net 4.68.95.28 from
Pittsburgh either and I peer directly with level3 with a full BGP feed.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:35 PM, J. Oquendo wrote:
>
> Anyone else experience sporadic funkiness via
> Level3? I can't even reach the main website fro
Anyone else experience sporadic funkiness via
Level3? I can't even reach the main website from who
knows how many networks I've tried. Also friends
and former colleagues have tried to reach the site
to no avail.
One of my machines on AT&T:
# traceroute level3.net
traceroute to level3.net (63.211.
Charles Wyble wrote:
>
>
> Crooks, Sam wrote:
>> I'm considering use of AT&T / Verizon / Sprint WWAN services and the
>> Cisco 3G router interface cards/integrated module in C880 routers for
>> primary or backup WAN network connectivity for routers.
>>
>
> I haven't used the integrated cards with c
Hi Martin,
That statement is true in the long run. But not the short run.
No would argue that current TransAtlantic pricing could justify a new cable
system. :)
If you look at the last three TransAtlantic builds, they spanned from $600
million to $980 million. No backhaul included.
Current
Crooks, Sam wrote:
I'm considering use of AT&T / Verizon / Sprint WWAN services and the
Cisco 3G router interface cards/integrated module in C880 routers for
primary or backup WAN network connectivity for routers.
I haven't used the integrated cards with cisco gear. However I do have
300+ c
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Rod Beck wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I never said that protected LAN PHY 10 GigE was more expensive than two
> diversely routed waves. However, Hibernia's engineers have advised that
> route protected LAN PHY 10 GigE will tolerate a relatively high BER before
> switch
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:35:43AM -0500, Dane wrote:
> Today I heard from someone who says Verizon is telling them they see
> about 700 calls per hour to Cuba originating from their PRI.
> Obviously some type of toll fraud.
In the same way that it's possible to configure a mail relay as a
device
Hi Richard,
I never said that protected LAN PHY 10 GigE was more expensive than two
diversely routed waves. However, Hibernia's engineers have advised that route
protected LAN PHY 10 GigE will tolerate a relatively high BER before switching.
I stand by that statement.
I said that protected S
My understanding is that AT&T uses an MPLS/VRF CE router facing the user
such that the resulting network connectivity is a private MPLS VPN. VZW
apparently requires the user to implement a GRE/IPSec configuration just
to reach their MPLS/VRF layer. The resulting user router config is thus
much simp
>From the network operators' standpoint, designing a network that
operates at 50% utilization (without using ponderous QoS schemes)
assumes that there is no random queuing behavior in the network that can
result in dropped packets and large variations in packet arrival jitter.
An active measurement
ACL's at the perimeter and/or on the gateways might help
Thanks,
Mike Goldman
-Original Message-
From: Leland E. Vandervort [mailto:lel...@taranta.discpro.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:39 AM
To: Dane
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SIP - perhaps botnet? anyone else seeing thi
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:32:02AM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 07:04 +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> > It seems there is a trend towards moving host protection on to the
> > hosts themselves, onto or closer to the resource or entity being
> > protected. It's basically following the c
Managed to get to the bottom of it, and it was indeed a SIP User-Agent
brute-force attempt. Interestingly, though, that your mail mentions
specifically verizon... the majority of the remote addresses during this
brute-force attempt were also behind verizon... coincidence?
Hmm..
Regards,
Lelan
The timing of your email as well as a couple of seemingly unrelated
things that I have heard about make me think this might be related to
some large toll fraud scheme.
Today I heard from someone who says Verizon is telling them they see
about 700 calls per hour to Cuba originating from their PRI.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 01:38:43PM +0100, Rod Beck wrote:
> There is no known way to provide cheap 10 wave protection. Not carrier
> grade. Protected 10 GigE service (LAN PHY 10 GigE) will tolerate a
> very high BER before switching. And the cost of switching STM64 is
> very high as well.
>
> Bot
MS is doing something very Jerico'ish with "DirectAccess" ... very loosely,
"Automagic IPsec + IPv6 (via Teredo when needed) + AD-based auth"
(MS's previous step was SDI (Server Domain Isolation))
/TJ
>-Original Message-
>From: Mark Smith
>[mailto:na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457d
Agreed.
But bear in mind that DWDM infrastructure that does 80 to 120 waves per fiber
pair is very expensive.
REgards,
Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
13-15, rue Sedaine, 75011 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.
French Landline: 33
Rod Beck wrote:
And if the 10 gig wave is from 1 Wilshire to 60 Hudson with hundreds of regen huts and 30 POPs in between?
How that affect the capex cost?
Sure, the capex cost of offering full diversity is substantial; my point
was just that the cost of switching STM64 signals at the endpi
And if the 10 gig wave is from 1 Wilshire to 60 Hudson with hundreds of regen
huts and 30 POPs in between?
How that affect the capex cost?
Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
13-15, rue Sedaine, 75011 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.
Fre
Adjacent cities is not what the long haul providers generally do.
My clients want Chicago Equinix to Frankfurt Interxion or Chicago Equinix to 60
Hudson. Not Pittsburgh to Cleveland.
The capex for those services is many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Consider all cards required to a provi
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Saqib Ilyas wrote:
> Hmmm. Good point. Perhaps the Internet traffic gets only a small share of
> the link capacity and the rest is reserved for corporate clients' VPN
> traffic etc. I was thinking more along the lines of corporate SLAs, not for
> Internet traffic.
Rod Beck wrote:
That service is probably very expensive.
There is no known way to provide cheap 10 wave protection. Not carrier grade. Protected 10 GigE service (LAN PHY 10 GigE) will tolerate a very high BER before switching. And the cost of switching STM64 is very high as well.
Bottom line
That's funny, because our company is a (very small) LEC and a member of a
(small) regional network, and we've been asked by a larger consortium to
give them protected 10-Gig waves between two cities. It's not been a
problem to find DWDM vendors that can do that.
Frank
-Original Message-
That service is probably very expensive.
There is no known way to provide cheap 10 wave protection. Not carrier grade.
Protected 10 GigE service (LAN PHY 10 GigE) will tolerate a very high BER
before switching. And the cost of switching STM64 is very high as well.
Bottom line is that it will
Ong Beng Hui wrote:
The problem of been LoS is a big problem in metro as far as I know.
You can't just put a pair of FSO gear without going to the building
owner to talk about rights and cost. Not forgetting lighting
protection and other stuff.
Murphy, Brian S CTR USAF ACC 83 NOS/Det 4 wrote:
Hmmm. Good point. Perhaps the Internet traffic gets only a small share of
the link capacity and the rest is reserved for corporate clients' VPN
traffic etc. I was thinking more along the lines of corporate SLAs, not for
Internet traffic.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Rod Beck wrote:
> Conges
I talked to the NOC personnel at a small (compared to North American
standards) ISP in Pakistan. They said that their core links are operating at
less than 50% utilization most of the time. Under such conditions, violating
SLA conditions in the core is unlikely. If such is also the case with most
s
On Apr 15, 2009, at 2:28 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Crooks, Sam wrote:
I'm considering use of AT&T / Verizon / Sprint WWAN services and the
Cisco 3G router interface cards/integrated module in C880 routers for
primary or backup WAN network connectivity for routers.
My comments are only for Spr
Hi -
I wanted to see if anyone is here from Intelligence Network Online - I
suspect an old AS number and a /16 of yours is being hijacked by a spam gang
operating in downtown LA and wanted to get some confirmation.
-Justin
I agree do not commit without POC or trial bases.
Mike Goldman
-Original Message-
From: Tony Varriale [mailto:tvarri...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 11:49 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Looking for AT&T / Verizon / Sprint WWAN service impressions -
on oroff-list repli
58 matches
Mail list logo
