[164361] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Anyone from frontiernet.net on here?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Janet Sullivan)
Wed Jul 10 00:19:56 2013
From: Janet Sullivan <janets@nairial.net>
To: Jeff Richmond <jeff.richmond@gmail.com>, Warren Bailey
<wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:18:56 +0000
In-Reply-To: <F2F1E2FC-EA99-46BB-AAB4-6BF72FC94F3F@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Thank you, I really appreciate you looking into this. In return, I'll offe=
r up that I'm a senior network engineer at Microsoft - if you ever have iss=
ues with AS8075, ping me, and I'll see what I can do.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Richmond [mailto:jeff.richmond@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:36 PM
To: Warren Bailey
Cc: Janet Sullivan; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Anyone from frontiernet.net on here?
All it looks like I am seeing packet loss there across all of our peering s=
essions with them, so looks like a problem on their network. I'll ask our N=
OC to open up a ticket with them though just to see if we can find out what=
the issue is.
Thanks,
-Jeff
On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegro=
up.com> wrote:
> There are some decent sized attacks taking place on gear near London, I b=
elieve. Could be a result of that?
>=20
>=20
> Sent from my Mobile Device.
>=20
>=20
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Janet Sullivan <janets@nairial.net>
> Date: 07/09/2013 5:01 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Anyone from frontiernet.net on here?
>=20
>=20
> I've been seeing really bad packet loss between PCCW and frontier, and so=
far haven't been able to make any traction with anyone on either side. I=
'm betting that the ??? is a peering point either in London or Ashburn.
>=20
> uk.bgp4.net (0.0.0.0) Tue Jul 9 20:39:53 2013
> Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields qu
> it Packets Pings
> Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
> 1. 212.111.33.230 0.0% 43 1.7 0.7 0.5 1.8 0.3
> 2. 212.111.33.237 0.0% 43 2.3 1.9 1.1 22.7 3.3
> 3. 63.218.13.221 0.0% 43 2.3 15.6 1.1 230.3 45.9
> 4. ???
> 5. 74.40.2.173 23.3% 43 177.9 150.3 147.8 177.9 7.0
> 6. 74.40.2.193 20.9% 43 149.9 149.9 149.1 161.2 2.1
> 7. 74.40.3.241 18.6% 43 149.6 152.4 149.1 193.2 8.8
> 8. 74.40.5.49 28.6% 43 148.1 150.8 147.8 192.1 9.9
> 9. 74.40.5.54 26.2% 43 148.3 150.5 147.9 218.7 12.6
> 10. 74.40.5.46 33.3% 42 149.5 154.0 149.2 212.8 14.0
> 11. 74.40.3.137 16.7% 42 147.4 148.7 146.9 163.0 4.1
> 12. 74.40.1.154 29.3% 42 148.2 153.6 147.7 206.7 14.2
> 13. 50.34.2.162 35.7% 42 150.2 150.4 149.8 156.3 1.2
> 14. 50.46.150.55 26.2% 42 150.7 151.0 150.5 152.0 0.4
>=20
