For any of you who are working late, we are just about to start (2am-4am
EST) a live webcast of a "Deployment Experience with IPv6" event from Hong
Kong. Fred Baker is the keynote speaker.
Webcast: http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters/
More info: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2630
--
---
Oh yes! Good lord I about went insane with this. I was working with a
customer single homed to cBeyond. I spent 3 hours on the phone with cBeyond to
figure out what was going on, it looks like a broken route. Come to find out
it was an XO "security null". The engineer on the phone from cBey
Actually, Juniper does disclose code bugs. Though not always to the public
at first, importantly to Juniper customers. Juniper had advised all of
their customers last August of this bug, however Level3 chose to continue
running it on their peer routers. Thus if Level3 and its clue(full)
management
> "transit provider". Is XO the end-access provider for either you or the
> destination site? Or are both of those on some other connection, and XO
> is a bystander along the way?
We're a direct customer. The IP's that I've seen them block have been
both on our network and on remote networks,
- Original Message -
> From: clay...@haydel.org
> There have several more cases like this, and XO has not been forthcoming
> with information. We're either looking to be exempted from this filtering
> or at least get a detailed description of how the system works. I'm not
> sure how they t
I'm hoping someone has had the same experiences, and is further toward a
resolution on this than I am. About 6 months ago, we noticed that XO was
blackholing one specific IP out of a /24. Traces to that IP stopped on
XO's network, traces to anything else out of the block went through fine.
XO fin
- Original Message -
> From: "Jonathan Lassoff"
>
> It's too bad that Junipers bugs aren't listed publicly. For clueful
> network operations, having this information available to them could
> have enabled them to properly weigh the risk of evaluating and
> certifying versions of their op
- Original Message -
> From: "Dustin Rhodes"
> Sounded like someone was broadcasting a BGP route with an invalid
> attribute and caused BGP session restarts or Core Dumps/crashes on any
> Juniper router running version 10.4
Well, it *is* getting on towards Christmas...
Cheers,
-- jr '*r
I would look into Uplogix. I've seen them demo their products at Cisco Live a
couple of times and they seem very good.
- You can connect a cellular modem to them.
- They can store backup device configs.
- They can store IOS images.
- They can even xmodem an image to a device if it gets stuck in RO
>
> On Nov 6, 2011 10:15 PM, "David Hubbard"
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all, I am looking at cellular-based devices as a higher
> > speed alternative to dial-up backup access methods for
> > out of band management during emergencies.
>
I've used the Digi devices for Clearwire site OOB and in many retail
On 2011-11-07, Leigh Porter wrote:
>>
>> LTE does not have the dual attachment problem since there is the
>> concept of having v4 and v6 in one attachment, but it does not change
>> the fact that there are not enough IPv4 addresses to go around,
>> especially from a strategic planning perspective
This was posted on pastebin earlier today in case it helps.
1. View Bulletin PSN-2011-08-327
2. Title MX Series MPC crash in Ktree::createFourWayNode after BGP UPDATE
3. Products Affected This issue can affect any MX Series router
with port concentrators based on the Trio chipset -- such
Any thoughts on just how wide read this was? Did every Juniper that receives
Internet BGP updates with the affected software break? Or did it die out quite
quickly?
--
Leigh
On 7 Nov 2011, at 19:55, "John van Oppen" wrote:
> We saw several customers go away this morning as well. Our netwo
On 11/7/2011 12:01 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> . It seems a quick view seems many TATA <-> Level3 and TATA <-> GBLX sets
> of instability.
>
> Combined with the overall update levels seen over that 30 minutes, we saw
> ~1.566M updates at route views.
> Compared with the 24h prior (2011.11.06
I just got pointed towards the following :
https://twitter.com/#!/JuniperNetworks/status/133637820081389568
And a (re)post on Pastbin :
http://pastebin.com/HBWiH92j
Juniper Networks replied to my post on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/erikbais/status/133641575585677312
That they are worki
We saw several customers go away this morning as well. Our network itself is
cisco so we did not see anything directly.
John van Oppen
@ AS11404.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Hill [mailto:t...@ninjabadger.net]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 7:09 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re:
Ripe Routing History seems to be efficient, showing me the AS and for
how long the prefix was announced.
This question showed me how pointless can be geoip databases (lots of
users in this range are also redirected to Neetherland version of Yahoo
and Youtube, me, I get some ad in russian).
I do
On 11/7/11 8:45 AM, Deric Kwok wrote:
> When I setup the server mtu as 9100. why I have to configure the
> switch mtu 9300 to make it working?
>
> What this extra 200 bytes is for what purpose? ls it standard?
MTUs above 2000 bytes are nonstandard. The most recent Ethernet spec,
802.3-2008, defi
- Original Message -
> From: "Leigh Porter"
> Just blame Shub Internet..
>
> Oh no, I've said it now!
Nah; Brad took down everything but the webserver years ago. :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer
Jared,
This is good stuff and I'm understanding how you interpret the
data. So this confirms what we are seeing. How do we take this towards a
root cause? Mash it with the Juniper threads and see where it goes?
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 11/07/2011 11:01 AM,
On 7 Nov 2011, at 17:45 , Deric Kwok wrote:
> When I setup the server mtu as 9100. why I have to configure the
> switch mtu 9300 to make it working?
> What this extra 200 bytes is for what purpose? ls it standard?
To avoid problems you really want to set the MTU of all your IP devices on the
sa
Here's some real data for those interested. It seems a quick view seems many
TATA <-> Level3 and TATA <-> GBLX sets of instability.
Combined with the overall update levels seen over that 30 minutes, we saw
~1.566M updates at route views.
Compared with the 24h prior (2011.11.06 14:15 as refere
On 11/7/11 08:37 , Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Richard Golodner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 11:09 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
>>> Can anyone point to any authoritative updates about this?
>>
>> I think Jared's suggestion was about as close as your going to get for
Thank you. This is somewhat of a learning opportunity for me. I hit all
the generic Internet health sites and I understand that there IS an
issue. Now I'm getting to learn how you guys attempt to understand WHY
we had an issue.
But my point is the same. If this is the case than the entire mont
On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:41 AM, -Hammer- wrote:
> So the file size was 30% higher implies that the number of updates is larger
> and therefore there is instability? I see the logic but if you scroll thru
> that page (the whole month of November) there are tons of >1M files. Trying
> to see what i
Hi all
When I setup the server mtu as 9100. why I have to configure the
switch mtu 9300 to make it working?
What this extra 200 bytes is for what purpose? ls it standard?
What is disadvantage of setting our all internal networks (host /
equipment) mtu more than 1500?
Thank you for your advice.
2011/11/7 Kelly Kane
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 07:06, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
> >
> > On #IX there are rumours about Junos version 10.3R2.11 being core dumped
> and
> > rebooted, which makes sense.
>
> Perhaps related to Juniper PSN-2011-08-327? Did the whole router
> reboot, or just the service mo
So the file size was 30% higher implies that the number of updates is
larger and therefore there is instability? I see the logic but if you
scroll thru that page (the whole month of November) there are tons of
>1M files. Trying to see what is different about today
-Hammer-
"I was a normal
On 7 Nov 2011, at 16:41, "Todd Snyder" wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Richard Golodner <
> rgolod...@infratection.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 11:09 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
>>> Can anyone point to any authoritative updates about this?
>>
>>I think Jared's sugges
Level 3 was down in KC, Chi, and San Jose (at least) for us between
about 8:10 and 8:40, plus or minus. Brought down SureWest in KC too.
-Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org [mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 10:05 AM
> To: nanog@nan
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Richard Golodner <
rgolod...@infratection.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 11:09 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
> > Can anyone point to any authoritative updates about this?
>
> I think Jared's suggestion was about as close as your going to get
> for
> right
On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Richard Golodner wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 11:09 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
>> Can anyone point to any authoritative updates about this?
>
> I think Jared's suggestion was about as close as your going to get for
> right now. Look at the size of the files he
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 11:09 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
> Can anyone point to any authoritative updates about this?
I think Jared's suggestion was about as close as your going to get for
right now. Look at the size of the files he mentioned as compared to the
average size of the others.
Joe,
> I am doing a survey to see what naming conventions are used for routers and
> router interfaces as part of a measurement study
On a related note, you might be interested in a study we did a few years ago
about errors in naming router interfaces, where a router in one location has a
name
I'm struggling to do the same. All the various "Internet Health" sites
show(ed) some upticks in negative performance but I don't have any
specifics. We are a Gomez customer and Gomez is showing issues In St.
Louis (SAVVIS) and Philly (L3) that specifically impacts the
availability of our applic
We got a panic message about the PFE that core'd and looks like it restarted
our FPC's.
JUNOS 10.2R2.11
-Dan
On Nov 7, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Kelly Kane wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 07:06, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
>>
>> On #IX there are rumours about Junos version 10.3R2.11 being core dumped and
Can anyone point to any authoritative updates about this?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Tom Hill wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:00 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
> >> We seem to be having some problems with our tata links - first seen in
> E
On Nov 6, 2011 10:15 PM, "David Hubbard"
wrote:
>
> Hi all, I am looking at cellular-based devices as a higher
> speed alternative to dial-up backup access methods for
> out of band management during emergencies. I was
> wondering if anyone had experiences with such devices
> they could share?
>
I am doing a survey to see what naming conventions are used for routers
and router interfaces as part of a measurement study that I am
conducting as a student at the University of Wisconsin Madison. If you
are interested in participating please fill out my form at:
https://docs.google.com/spre
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Calkins, Mark wrote:
I believe you are referring to Time Warner Cable. There is no such thing as
Time Warner Telecom anymore.
It's just TW Telecom now.
http://www.twtelecom.com/
--
Jon Lewis, MCP :)
FWIW, We saw issues here in Indianapolis between TWTC and L3 up until a few
minutes ago.
--Thomas York
-Original Message-
From: Blake Hudson [mailto:bl...@ispn.net]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 11:02 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Time Warner Telecom problems
Joe Greco wrote t
Joe Greco wrote the following on 11/7/2011 9:54 AM:
Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom we're suffering
from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so far... does
anyone have any further information?
http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warner-outage-hits-t
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 07:06, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
>
> On #IX there are rumours about Junos version 10.3R2.11 being core dumped and
> rebooted, which makes sense.
Perhaps related to Juniper PSN-2011-08-327? Did the whole router
reboot, or just the service module?
We saw one TATA session, and on
> Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom we're suffering
> from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so far... does
> anyone have any further information?
>
> http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warner-outage-hits-the-us
Actually, it looks to me like they mea
My 10.4r1.9 boxes died also but I saw interfaces go down whilst bgpd seemed
stable.
--
Leigh
On 7 Nov 2011, at 15:34, "Pierre-Yves Maunier" wrote:
> 2011/11/7 Tom Hill
>
>> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:00 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
>>> We seem to be having some problems with our tata links -
2011/11/7 Tom Hill
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:00 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
> > We seem to be having some problems with our tata links - first seen in EU
> > about 45 minutes ago, now we're seeing problems in NA. I'm focused on
> DNS,
> > so I'm seeing a lot of timeouts/servfails, but our network
On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Tom Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:00 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
>> We seem to be having some problems with our tata links - first seen in EU
>> about 45 minutes ago, now we're seeing problems in NA. I'm focused on DNS,
>> so I'm seeing a lot of timeouts/servfa
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 07:04:19AM -0800, Peter Pauly wrote:
> Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom we're suffering
> from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so far... does
> anyone have any further information?
>
> http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warn
On 7 Nov 2011, at 14:03, "Bjørn Mork" wrote:
> Leigh Porter writes:
>
>> Indeed, there is no way I would allow that either. But really,
>> providing a reverse zone and forward zone to match is a case of five
>> minutes and a shell script or a DNS that as Steinar said, will
>> synthesise resul
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Peter Pauly wrote:
Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom we're suffering
from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so far... does
anyone have any further information?
http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warner-outage-hits-the-us
I not
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:00 -0500, Todd Snyder wrote:
> We seem to be having some problems with our tata links - first seen in EU
> about 45 minutes ago, now we're seeing problems in NA. I'm focused on DNS,
> so I'm seeing a lot of timeouts/servfails, but our networking folks are
> talking about l
If your an L3 transit customer you should be able to refer to event id
5197215.
Not sure if they have published anything otherwise, it is still very early.
In our case we had to drop our L3 sessions until the storm passes.
Lane
On 11/7/11 9:08 AM, "Drew Weaver" wrote:
>Any idea where this inf
I believe you are referring to Time Warner Cable. There is no such thing as
Time Warner Telecom anymore.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Pauly [mailto:ppa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 8:04 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Time Warner Telecom problems
Gizmodo is reporting
Any idea where this information can be found publically?
-Original Message-
From: Lane Powers [mailto:lane.pow...@swat.coop]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 10:06 AM
To: Peter Pauly; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Time Warner Telecom problems
L3 reported multiple links bouncing nationwide
L3 reported multiple links bouncing nationwide in the US approx 30 minutes
ago. Causing multiple IP issues.
Lane
--
Lane Powers
On 11/7/11 9:04 AM, "Peter Pauly" wrote:
>Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom we're suffering
>from it too and calls to the NOC have not been a
Hi,
This issue seems to be much bigger, we lost about 20 Level3 and some
TATA sessions.
Also we lost about 15% of our total traffic.
On #IX there are rumours about Junos version 10.3R2.11 being core dumped
and rebooted, which makes sense.
Currently traffic is restored.
Tim
On 07-11-11 16:
The current line is Level3 is currently having an issue where they have certain
code versions of a certain router vendor deployed.
They haven't said anything yet, so it's still kind of sketchy.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Pauly [mailto:ppa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 201
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 10:00:34AM -0500,
Todd Snyder wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
> We seem to be having some problems with our tata links
They probably use Juniper routers :-)
Gizmodo is reporting problems at Time Warner Telecom we're suffering
from it too and calls to the NOC have not been answered so far... does
anyone have any further information?
http://gizmodo.com/5857010/massive-time-warner-outage-hits-the-us
We seem to be having some problems with our tata links - first seen in EU
about 45 minutes ago, now we're seeing problems in NA. I'm focused on DNS,
so I'm seeing a lot of timeouts/servfails, but our networking folks are
talking about links dropping.
Anyone else seeing oddness on the NA Internet
Leigh Porter writes:
> Indeed, there is no way I would allow that either. But really,
> providing a reverse zone and forward zone to match is a case of five
> minutes and a shell script or a DNS that as Steinar said, will
> synthesise results.
>
> It's really not all that difficult..
No, not at
On 7 Nov 2011, at 13:48, "sth...@nethelp.no" wrote:
>>> The practice of filling out the reverse zone with fake PTR record
>>> started before there was wide spread support for UPDATE/DNS. There
>>> isn't any need for this to be done anymore. Machines are capable
>>> of adding records for thems
> > The practice of filling out the reverse zone with fake PTR record
> > started before there was wide spread support for UPDATE/DNS. There
> > isn't any need for this to be done anymore. Machines are capable
> > of adding records for themselves.
>
> How do I setup this for DHCPv6-PD? Say, I d
On 2 November 2011 17:57, Matt Chung wrote:
> I work for a regional ISP and very recently there has been an influx of
> calls reporting "slowness" when accessing certain websites (i.e
> google.com/voice/b) via HTTP. *snip*
>
I have been experiencing this same issue as an end user, my ISP does n
Hi Cameron,
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 21:31 -0800, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> There are a variety of reasons. Most prominent is that if the issue
> is lack of IPv4 addresses (public and private), dual-stack does not
> solve this problem, each device still gets an IPv4 address. Another
> major issue i
>
> LTE does not have the dual attachment problem since there is the
> concept of having v4 and v6 in one attachment, but it does not change
> the fact that there are not enough IPv4 addresses to go around,
> especially from a strategic planning perspective (let's design this
> once for 5 to 10+ y
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:34 AM, wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:09:19 CST, Robert Bonomi said:
>> You're missing some 'obvious' considerations. Consider a spam complaint
>> sent with 'full headers' included. The rDNS _at_the_time_of_the_crime_
>> is present in the complaint.
> And if the rDNS i
68 matches
Mail list logo