All -
I'm a rare poster to the nanog list these days but I
sent a traceroute in response to the google thread
today - thinking that the working path from the NW
to .de to Mountain View of some interest.
It took 40 mins from hitting send for the post to reach
the list - at which point, it was
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Randy Epstein wrote:
Lucy,
snip
It took 40 mins from hitting send for the post to reach
the list - at which point, it was really a dead letter.
The interesting stuff was already over.
I suspect that delayed posts on this thread will continue
to dribble in for a while
Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
Basically the CPU scaling on the host makes the guest OS fall apart.
Apologies for the general noise (and even more apologies for stepping
outside of the nanog scope), but if it's timing related issues does
/usepmtimer not resolve this issue for the VMs? It certainly
I will be out of the office starting 05/14/2009 and will not return until
05/15/2009.
I will be out of the office on Thursday 5/14. I will repsond to your e-mail
when I return on Friday 5/15.
-
Please consider the environment before printing this email
am seeing significant delays in getting to google. anyone else seeing this?
$ traceroute www.google.com
traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using
74.125.53.147
traceroute to www.l.google.com (74.125.53.147), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco-190 (129.116.190.250)
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Steve Williams willi...@csr.utexas.eduwrote:
am seeing significant delays in getting to google. anyone else seeing
this?
$ traceroute www.google.com
traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using
74.125.53.147
traceroute to
Seeing the same thing from NY using NTT, we routed via Cogent which does not
seem to be having the problem.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Athanasios Douitsis aduit...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Steve Williams willi...@csr.utexas.edu
wrote:
am seeing significant
Same here through ATT (AS7018) and Level3 (AS7911).
On 5/14/09 11:48 AM, Steve Williams willi...@csr.utexas.edu wrote:
am seeing significant delays in getting to google. anyone else seeing this?
$ traceroute www.google.com
traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using
Hello,
Same issue in portugal and spain.
pt:~# traceroute www.google.com
traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using 209.85.227.147
traceroute to www.l.google.com (209.85.227.147), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 ge130-1000m.cr2.lisboa.nfsi.pt (81.92.200.126) 0.203 ms
Also seeing this in Dallas, TX area, from ATT and Verizon
-Original Message-
From: Mario Fernandez [mailto:ma...@fernandez.ca]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:53 AM
To: Athanasios Douitsis
Cc: na...@merit.edu
Subject: Re: delays to google
Seeing the same thing from NY using
Seeing this on blackberry and Verizon business.
On 5/14/09, Steve Williams willi...@csr.utexas.edu wrote:
am seeing significant delays in getting to google. anyone else seeing this?
$ traceroute www.google.com
traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using
74.125.53.147
$ traceroute www.google.com
traceroute to www.google.com (72.14.205.103), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 ge4-1.core.mpls.gippy.net (216.243.170.254) 1.285 ms 1.500 ms 1.451 ms
2 209-240-78-33.static.iphouse.net (209.240.78.33) 1.418 ms 1.597 ms 1.887
ms
3
Yeah, definitely seeing it here. Gmail via POP has been dead for a
while too. This is via Unite Private Networks (via Qwest ultimately)
in Lincoln, Neb.
Last login: Thu May 14 10:35:12 on ttys000
204-Andy:~ andyring$ ping google.com
PING google.com (74.125.45.100): 56 data bytes
64 bytes
We are tracking it here: http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=6388
Received some complaints about being unable to reach HP's download web
site. Seems reachable but alternately nonresponsive, Service unavailable,
HP fail page, fail to resolve, etc. (h2.www2.hp.com) Maybe related,
maybe
Apologies for skirting close, but I think power consumption and heat
dissipation are pretty big operator costs, and anything we can do to
reduce those are beneficial to the bottom line; never mind the
environment. More below:
-Original Message-
From: Karl Southern
We are not experiencing any issues seeing google:
[r...@hermes ~]# traceroute www.google.com
traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using
66.102.7.104
traceroute to www.l.google.com (66.102.7.104), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 router (216.139.0.65) 0.271 ms 0.746 ms
pac-nw
going to Frankfurt to get to Mountain view:
traceroute to 74.125.87.101 (74.125.87.101), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 ext-gw.lan (192.168.11.1) 0.983 ms 1.550 ms 1.795 ms
2 73.90.28.1 (73.90.28.1) 21.859 ms 21.945 ms 22.126 ms
3 68.85.148.113 (68.85.148.113) 22.312 ms
Google and gmail look fine from here (University of Pittsburgh)... no
loss, ~30ms RTT, reachable through TransitRail.
I'm guessing whatever the issue is has been resolved, or the storm has
passed?
jms
On Thu, 14 May 2009, and...@arsenaleartisans.com wrote:
Sessions time out or fail from
Works gr8 in europe from direct peers with Google:
6 72.14.198.177 (72.14.198.177) 45.648 ms 1.259 ms 1.069 ms
7 209.85.252.186 (209.85.252.186) 1.455 ms 1.350 ms 1.400 ms
8 209.85.254.153 (209.85.254.153) 20.040 ms 20.494 ms 20.226 ms
9 216.239.48.10 (216.239.48.10) 59.618 ms
conficker?
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Darden [mailto:dar...@armc.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:13 PM
To: na...@merit.edu
Subject: Re: delays to google
Fixed?
5 mins ago:
1 gw1.armc.org (68.153.29.1) 0.571 ms 0.705 ms 0.732 ms
2 65.14.131.185 (65.14.131.185) 2.330
We have been receiving reports for about the past hour and a half at
http://isc.sans.org and via Twitter. The situation appears to be clearing
up now.
J
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:13 PM, rar r...@syssrc.com wrote:
We are seeing issues through our Verizon, and Level3 connections. Fine
through
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:34 -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I'm guessing whatever the issue is has been resolved, or the storm has
passed?
http://www.google.com/appsstatus#rm:1/di:1/do:1/ddo:0
Not that it would have been much use to you at the time.
Graeme
maybe is a good time to enable IPv6 :-)
We noticed issues on IPv4, but IPv6 was working perfectly (we are on Google
IPv6 program)...
I was able to access google all the times, as i was using IPv6 as preferred
transport
IPv4:
traceroute to www.google.com (209.85.227.104), 30 hops max, 40
Google ack'da maintenance on their core network did not go as
planned-Forced traffic to one peer link that was unable to handle all the
traffic. Maintenance has been rolled back. Issue has been restored,
-Adam
On May 14, 2009 12:44pm, Mullins, Douglas dmull...@covad.com wrote:
conficker?
Anyone else want to unconfused Ben? I obviously cannot.
The numerous misconceptions propagated in this thread prompted me to go
through the relevant sections of RFC 1122 and write a short article on
multihomed IP host issues.
http://wiki.nil.com/Multihomed_IP_hosts
Your contributions, either
[Citation Needed]
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, a2t...@gmail.com wrote:
Google ack'da maintenance on their core network did not go as
planned-Forced traffic to one peer link that was unable to handle all the
traffic. Maintenance has been rolled back. Issue has been restored,
-Adam
On
Dear Sprint EVDO people,
Your man-in-the-middle hijacking of UDP/53 DNS queries against
nameservers that I choose to query from my laptop on Sprint EVDO is
not appreciated. Even less appreciated is your complete blocking of
TCP/53 DNS queries.
Queries from my lab:
r...@click [14] %dig
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Graeme Fowler wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:34 -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I'm guessing whatever the issue is has been resolved, or the storm has
passed?
http://www.google.com/appsstatus#rm:1/di:1/do:1/ddo:0
Not that it would have been much use to you at the
It's starting to show up in the news media as well:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090514/D9864P900.html
Google glitch disrupts search engine, e-mail
inline: email_this_page_sm.gif
Email this Story
May 14, 12:54 PM (ET)
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (AP) - Technical problems at Google
Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
It's starting to show up in the news media as well:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090514/D9864P900.html
Google glitch disrupts search engine, e-mail
Because we let google control our fate far too much.
Personally, I think this thread is more off topic than
On 5/14/09, Peter Beckman beck...@angryox.com wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Graeme Fowler wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:34 -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I'm guessing whatever the issue is has been resolved, or the storm has
passed?
While you're at it, it would be nice if SPRINT also fixed the problems
with ports TCP/25 and TCP/587.
Another disgruntled SPRINT customer,
Owen
On May 14, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Dear Sprint EVDO people,
Your man-in-the-middle hijacking of UDP/53 DNS queries against
Can you be more specific? My TCP/465 and TCP/587 mail submission
works great over Sprint. I'm not even trying to do submission on port
25 (in fact, my mail servers send rude messages if you try AUTH to a
port 25 listener) so I can't speak to that.
-r
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
going to Frankfurt to get to Mountain view:
do not eat the wurst in the senator lounge
randy
Owen DeLong wrote:
While you're at it, it would be nice if SPRINT also fixed the problems
with ports TCP/25 and TCP/587.
Never tried 25, but I know 587 is fine through a tethered handset my
(extremely non-technical) significant other uses daily. Shouldn't we all
be using the submission port
Dear Sprint EVDO people,
Your man-in-the-middle hijacking of UDP/53 DNS queries against
nameservers that I choose to query from my laptop on Sprint EVDO is
not appreciated. Even less appreciated is your complete blocking of
TCP/53 DNS queries.
If I were an ISP, and I knew that approximately
I agree, running monitoring from my laptop at home at
nights/weekends/vacations/holidays... I need to use most of those ports.
My answer was VNP/tunnel everything.
-Original Message-
From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc:
I use SSH tunnels for all mail, but I have had no problems with
DNS over Sprint EVD0 (the OP's issue).
Regards
Marshall
On May 14, 2009, at 6:48 PM, Dave Larter wrote:
I agree, running monitoring from my laptop at home at
nights/weekends/vacations/holidays... I need to use most of those
In message 20090514223605.88104.qm...@simone.iecc.com, John Levine writes:
Dear Sprint EVDO people,
Your man-in-the-middle hijacking of UDP/53 DNS queries against
nameservers that I choose to query from my laptop on Sprint EVDO is
not appreciated. Even less appreciated is your complete
Disclaimer: I have a dog in this fight, since ThreatSTOP is dependent on
DNS/TCP.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Andrews [mailto:mark_andr...@isc.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:59 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; r...@seastrom.com
Subject: Re: you're not interesting,was Re:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org wrote:
If I were an ISP, and I knew that approximately 99.9% of customer
queries to random name servers was malware doing fake site phishing or
misconfigured PCs that will work OK and avoid a support call if they
answer the DNS
In message 70d072392e56884193e3d2de09c097a91f3...@pascal.zaphodb.org, Tomas
L. Byrnes writes:
Disclaimer: I have a dog in this fight, since ThreatSTOP is dependent on
DNS/TCP.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Andrews [mailto:mark_andr...@isc.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:59 PM
You are brave indeed to trust your packets over the air without a VPN or tunnel
of some sort.
While it sounds like Sprint is doing something, for lack of a better word,
lame, you would be well advised to not trust your packets to the built-in cell
encryption (obfuscation).
- S
-Original
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
we need a gsr and a few more reasonably sized devices racked and cabled
in dallas and would appreciate private email recommending a local
contractor.
This is a little late, but...wkumari had setup (or started to) a while ago:
Hello,
It's always cool to have console access to routers/switches and
nowadays they are going from RS-232 to RJ-45 as a standart. I have got
Avocent DSR 2035 which is a KVM+Serial console (all in one).. but
while I was able to have it work against servers via KVM or/and Serial
, I was unable to
I've found Avocents to be a nightmare, and the company to be horrible to
deal with.
They work fine as a local console switch, but they are absurdly
expensive for that use. The rest of their features are byzantine in
implementation and usage, and their support and licensing policies
exorbitant.
Well said, if you can't build it, don't trust it.
Andrew (top posted as per previous convention)
Skywing wrote:
You are brave indeed to trust your packets over the air without a VPN or
tunnel of some sort.
While it sounds like Sprint is doing something, for lack of a better word,
lame,
Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
I've found Avocents to be a nightmare, and the company to be horrible to
deal with.
They work fine as a local console switch, but they are absurdly
expensive for that use. The rest of their features are byzantine in
implementation and usage, and their support and
Subject: Re: you're not interesting, was Re: another brick in the wall[ed
garden] Date: Fri, May 15, 2009 at 09:58:32AM +1000 Quoting Mark Andrews
(mark_andr...@isc.org):
And what's the next protocol that is going to be stomped on?
Anything except http; at which point everything will
Cisco makes a 16 port Async card for ISR routers, they even bundle it
with a 2811 router for fairly inexpensive $$$... Cisco2811-16TS is the
partnum I think
You can scale up very high or down very low for your console needs with
cisco routers, and inexpensive used or obsolete routers are
50 matches
Mail list logo
