[32528] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: I think I jinxed Sprint
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Woodfield)
Mon Nov 27 11:36:45 2000
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:30:45 -0500
From: Chris Woodfield <rekoil@semihuman.com>
To: Mathew Butler <mbutler@tonbu.com>
Cc: "'Roeland Meyer'" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
"'Sean Donelan'" <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001127113045.B2892@semihuman.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F062E72E4BA2D4119F1700B0D03D205F39DC@MAIL>; from mbutler@tonbu.com on Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 02:44:00AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
...and in other news, speaking of Sprint, it appears that AS5511, a
Sprintlink customer, became a transit provider for the netblock belonging to
my ISP, CapuNet (an AboveNet customer), and probably many other AboveNet
blocks, for about 15 minutes this morning...
core1.wdc>sh ip bgp 64.50.178.19
BGP routing table entry for 64.50.160.0/19, version 9657504
Paths: (2 available, best #1, advertised over IBGP)
1239 5511 6461 7380
144.228.242.51 from 144.228.242.51
Origin IGP, metric 55, localpref 50000, valid, external, best
Community: 6993:1239 65000:10913
1239 5511 6461 7380, (received-only)
144.228.242.51 from 144.228.242.51
Origin IGP, metric 55, localpref 100, valid, external
[cwoodfield@cwoodfield src]$ traceroute 64.50.178.19
traceroute to cd-178-19.ra30.dc.capu.net (64.50.178.19): 1-30 hops, 38
byte packets
1 internap-wtcb-gw.e0.wdc.pnap.net (216.52.126.188) 1.05 ms 0.932 ms
2.76 ms
2 border2.s3-0.wtc-2.wdc.pnap.net (216.52.127.197) 5.34 ms 3.79 ms
5.59 ms
3 core1.fe0-0-fenet1.wdc.pnap.net (216.52.127.1) 5.33 ms 5.52 ms 9.60
ms
4 sl-gw2-rly-6-1-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.184.89) 5.14 ms 6.67 ms
5.66 ms
5 sl-bb21-rly-3-3.sprintlink.net (144.232.14.45) 8.17 ms 6.74 ms 5.59
ms
6 sl-bb20-pen-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.241) 8.16 ms 9.58 ms
8.43 ms
7 sl-bb20-stk-12-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.46) 67.9 ms 67.3 ms
70.9 ms
8 sl-gw28-stk-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.4.110) 67.8 ms 67.4 ms 68.1
ms
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 P6-0.STKBB2.Stockton.opentransit.net (193.251.129.58) * * 1242 ms
(ttl=247!)
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16
-Chris Woodfield
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 02:44:00AM -0800, Mathew Butler wrote:
>
> I thought that routers were supposed to send ICMP Source-Quench messages
> when they got congested?
>
> Or is this something that the proponents of QoS didn't decide on?
>
> -Mat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:58 AM
> To: 'Sean Donelan'; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: I think I jinxed Sprint
>
> The internet is a lot less forgiving wrt outages then the telco. The telco
> can have a circut outage, re-route to another circuit, and the customer
> never sees an availability gap. Also, a total outage, during reduced traffic
> times, and no customer ever misses a dial-tone because they aren't trying to
> get one, is not an outage in telco terms. The internet, on the other hand,
> may have similar issues, unless we start talking streaming video, streaming
> audio, and voice over IP. In those cases, packet losses can make a serious
> mess of things. Also, congestion is treated differently between the two
> systems. Telcos will actually return a fast-busy when a switch becomes
> congested. The internet simply starts dropping packets. You can actually
> hear the latter when using www.dialpad.com or MS-Netmeeting (both of which,
> I use extensively).
--
---------------------------
Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
