Re: google and amazon wierdness via HE right now

It appears HE and others accepted 'hijacked' routes from AS200759. A quick initial investigation shows close to 2,000 prefixes were affected including prefixes normally announced by networks such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, Apple, Akamai, Time Warner Cable and more. Also see more

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to

Re: google and amazon wierdness via HE right now

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 01:22:27PM -0400, Ken Chase wrote: > and of course the second I post it all fixes itself. NANOG works! Thanks! > > (was going on for about 10-15 min) > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 01:21:47PM -0400, Ken Chase said: > > > >From toronto - something odd - mtr to google.com

RE: google and amazon wierdness via HE right now

Being discussed on outages, too. Our monitoring system saw access to www.amazon.com and www.cablelabs.com (over v6) down via HE ... amazon came back up for me via Zayo, but when www.cablelabs.com came back up, it was on HE. So the same as you. So I suspect HE had a hiccup. Frank -Original

Re: google and amazon wierdness via HE right now

and of course the second I post it all fixes itself. NANOG works! Thanks! (was going on for about 10-15 min) On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 01:21:47PM -0400, Ken Chase said: > >From toronto - something odd - mtr to google.com (google.com (172.217.3.142)) > > 5. v638.core1.tor1.he.net >

google and amazon wierdness via HE right now

>From toronto - something odd - mtr to google.com (google.com (172.217.3.142)) 5. v638.core1.tor1.he.net 6. 100ge7-2.core1.nyc4.he.net 7. 100ge11-1.core1.par2.he.net 8. 10ge3-2.core1.zrh1.he.net 9. ??? par is paris, zrh is zurich? same base path for hitting my EC2 nodes...

Re: Major IX bandwidth sharing

I assume they are looking for some one that has a lot of upstream content. On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote: > Not to mention the sharer's traffic will be impacted by said DoS... > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: >

Re: Major IX bandwidth sharing

Hello! Nice addition. That's additional risks for company which want to share capacity :) On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Blake Dunlap wrote: > Not to mention the sharer's traffic will be impacted by said DoS... > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Max Tulyev

Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs

Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:27:53AM -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote: > 90%+ of the stacks deployed will be too small. Modern Unix generally > has "autotuning" TCP stacks, but I don't think Windows or OS X has > those features yet OS X since ~10.5 has autotuning, here are some hints from ESnet