[46591] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Qwest Support
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Woodfield)
Fri Apr 5 12:22:18 2002
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:20:41 -0500
From: Chris Woodfield <rekoil@semihuman.com>
To: Daniel Golding <dgolding@sockeye.com>
Cc: Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020405172040.GG10949@semihuman.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <GKEFKKIKGCMICPKBAEIMOEAFCHAA.dgolding@sockeye.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think the main point here isn't the fact that the poster's routing was, i=
n fact,=20
not set up properly; it was the fact that he was unable to get a live body =
at Qwest=20
to check it out.
-C
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:24:53PM -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
>=20
> I suppose. Except it's not even certain you were having a problem of any
> kind at all.
>=20
> Qwest's presence or absence from public IX's really has nothing to do with
> your routes being announced. In fact, Qwest privately peers with all the
> other large networks. While there are many peering sessions at the public
> NAPs, most traffic is carried over private network interconnects, at least
> domestically. Certain peering points in Europe (Linx), tend to run the ot=
her
> way.
>=20
> In fact, if Qwest were publically peering with other networks, it might b=
e a
> reason why your routes through UUNet were being prefered - private peer
> originated routes are almost always assigned higher local preferences in
> carrier networks, then public peer originated routes.
>=20
> I'm not sure your annoyance with Qwest has any basis in their lack of
> performance, as far as IP routing. BGP decision rules and other networks'
> routing policies will govern which paths are used for your routes. Here is
> an example...
>=20
> - Network X peers with UUNet in 8 locations. Network X also peers with
> Qwest, lets say in 6 locations. For whatever reason, network X chooses
> UUNet's routes to you over, Qwest's. This could be due to local routing
> policy, dictating that 701 routes get a higher local pref. Or AS path
> lengths could be the same, and the decision could be falling to something
> like router ID. Whatever.
>=20
> - In general, all the UUNet peering will get treated the same by Network =
X's
> routing policy. This won't always be the case, but let's say that none of
> the peering links are congested, etc. So, a certain number of paths are
> carried throughout Network X via iBGP. If UUNet's routes "won" at all tho=
se
> peering points, you will not see any paths through Qwest on a single carr=
ier
> route server like Nitrous.
>=20
> - Route-views, and the like are different animals. They get ebgp multihop
> views from many providers, so you will tend to see paths from many differ=
ent
> vantage points, and are more likely to see paths from both your upstreams.
>=20
> ISPs get a heavy volume of calls every day. While Qwest may not have the
> greatest customer service, it's not like you were actually down or had a
> qwest originated routing issue. If that were the case, my sympathy would =
be
> greater.
>=20
> - Daniel Golding
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Andy Dills
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:43 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Qwest Support
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Wow, Qwest support is indeed terrible.
>=20
> Turned up the DS3 today...the connectivity seems fine. I decided to check
> a couple of routeservers (nitrous); all had my much-prepended UUnet
> announcement, but NONE had my Qwest announcement. Not a huge deal, but
> curious to me. Is Qwest just not at the public peering points? When I
> checked route-views.oregan-ix.net, I felt better, but yet annoyed. Even
> with the prepends, most networks were announcing UUnet's path.
>=20
> So I decided to call them and ask...man what a mistake. The guy is like,
> "Ok, hold on, let me get somebody from our IP noc." 10 minutes goes by,
> and he comes back with "Couldn't get anybody in the IP noc, let me try to
> get somebody in your install group" (being that I turned up the DS3
> today). Comes back another 10 minutes later with "Well, I left a message
> for them, but there isn't much I can do. Nobody seems to be answering
> their phone. If somebody doesn't call you back within 30 minutes, here's
> a number to call..."
>=20
> So what if my routes were actually hosed? I'd just be screwed because they
> can't get anybody at the IP noc?
>=20
> I wait. Nobody calls back within 30 minutes. I call the number he gave me.
> Busy. You gotta be kidding me.
>=20
> So I call the main number again, talk to somebody different. She has me
> hold, and then brings some guy on the line "who can help me". I start to
> talk about route servers, and he's immediately like "Woah, this is a BGP
> problem...I can't help you. Let me try to get somebody from the IP noc."
>=20
> So, I wait on hold for about 15 minutes, only to be given dial tone.
>=20
> Please tell me it isn't always THIS bad?
>=20
> Andy
>=20
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Andy Dills 301-682-9972
> Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
>=20
--RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8rdzoqP/YiunDNcERAh+pAJ9iBtRWUhLhVoRmnlsFTw+MrmPgVACdEOwl
GKSKmoAI5l5GDDRWraowBjc=
=soSC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo--
