[112013] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: McAfee/AT&T Issue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Calhoun, Matthew)
Wed Feb 18 13:25:10 2009
From: "Calhoun, Matthew" <mcalhoun@iodatacenters.com>
To: Justin Krejci <jkrejci@usinternet.com>, "kgasso@visp.net" <kgasso@visp.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:25:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <80CDE2A08C944212B6670743FC43388D@usicorp.usinternet.com>
Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
While I agree with all of your assessments, this traceroute was being provi=
ded to illustrate where traffic *appears* to be stopping when we are seeing=
the issue. It's intermittent, so some times we can reach the destination h=
osts (via HTTP, HTTPS, etc.) and sometimes we can't.
When we can reach the destination hosts (via HTTP), the traceroute complete=
s
When we can't reach the destination hosts (via HTTP), the traceroute won't =
complete and the last hop is the host that I indicated in my previous post =
(12.118.225.22)
Thanks,
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Krejci [mailto:jkrejci@usinternet.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:15 AM
To: kgasso@visp.net; Calhoun, Matthew
Cc: 'NANOG list'
Subject: RE: McAfee/AT&T Issue
We've also seen that busy routers are slower to respond to requests directe=
d
at them as opposed to traffic routing thru them which can continue to work
without issue or performance loss.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kameron Gasso [mailto:kgasso-lists@visp.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 12:03 PM
To: Calhoun, Matthew
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: McAfee/AT&T Issue
Calhoun, Matthew wrote:
> 9 212 ms 200 ms * 12.118.225.22 <--------Problem occurring
here. Sometimes traffic gets through, sometimes it doesn't
> 10 29 ms 26 ms 26 ms 216.143.71.219
> 11 26 ms 26 ms 26 ms www.mcafeeasap.com [208.69.153.135]
Looks a lot like that hop is rate-limiting ICMP to itself. Everything
beyond it seems to be good from the looks of it.
-Kam
