[195763] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Thu Sep 14 07:57:43 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <ba5dae2bb9fe4e42bcbc29266d605a8a@ox.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:58:45 -0400
To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
> This weekend our uninterruptible power supply became interruptible and we
> lost all circuits. While I was doing initial debugging of the problem while
> I waited on site power verification, I noticed that there was still paths
> being shown in rviews for the circuit that were down. This was over an hour
> after we went hard down and it took hours before we were back up.
>
>
explicit vs implicit withdrawals causing different handling of the problem
routes?
> I worked with our providers last night to verify there weren't any hanging
> static routes, etc... We shut the upstream circuit down and watched the
> convergence and saw that eventually all the paths disappeared. Given what
> we saw on Saturday, what would cause route-views to cache the paths that
> long? Some looking glass sites only show what they are peered with or at
> most what their peers are peered with, that's why I've always used
> route-views.
>
> What looking glass sites other than route-views would people recommend?
>
ripe ris.
