Hi All,
Final update from Cogent -- glad they have finally acknowledged -- but
no ETA, just great:
After further investigation, we have identified an issue of congestion
on our core device. At this time we are scheduling a maintenance to
alleviate the congestion which in turn will fix the pa
://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
Original Message
Subject: Re: Cogent NOC
Local Time: December 14, 2016 2:53 PM
UTC Time: December 14, 2016 7:53 PM
From: lis...@kurtkraut.net
To: a...@djlab.com
Nanog
Hello,
mtr packet loss column has no scientific precision and should not be
considered
On 12/14/2016 3:42 pm, Bryan Holloway wrote:
Odd, though, that they didn't respond for three days. I've typically
had good luck with that, although admittedly it's been months since
I've opened an e-mail ticket with their NOC. Spam-filter?
No, I got a confirmation and ticket ID immediately.
To: "Nanog"
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:16:41 PM
Subject: Cogent NOC
Hi all,
Anyone beyond front line support at cogento on list?
Nanog is the last place I'd look for assistance but it seems support
over at cogentco is not nearly what it used to be.
Example MTR to co
- Original Message -
From: "Randy"
To: "Nanog"
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:16:41 PM
Subject: Cogent NOC
Hi all,
Anyone beyond front line support at cogento on list?
Nanog is the last place I'd look for assistance but it seems support
over at cogentco is not
Walking the line, so to speak. Starting with our directly connected
cogent peer. Loss begins at the same hop and carries through to the end
host. I'm only using cogentco as an example, but the results are the
same anywhere.
[root@mon ~]# ping -c 1000 -f 38.88.249.209
PING 38.88.249.209 (38.
I was going to reply and repeat Job Snijders's indications of Thu, 7 Jul 2016 to
Please review the excellent presentation from RA{T,S}:
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Sunday/RAS_Traceroute_N47_Sun.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1IaRAVGPEE
esp the pdf there, b
On 12/14/2016 11:53 am, Kurt Kraut wrote:
> Hello,
>
> mtr packet loss column has no scientific precision and should not be
> considered. It is not mtr fault but forwarding routers have a low priority to
> respond to ICMP requests. The only way you can prove there is a problem is a
> end to e
Hello,
mtr packet loss column has no scientific precision and should not be
considered. It is not mtr fault but forwarding routers have a low priority
to respond to ICMP requests. The only way you can prove there is a problem
is a end to end ping, the regular ping command, not mtr.
Best regards
Hi all,
Anyone beyond front line support at cogento on list?
Nanog is the last place I'd look for assistance but it seems support
over at cogentco is not nearly what it used to be.
Example MTR to cogen't own website (support doesn't utilize or
understand MTR at all apparently):
Host
if there's a Cogent NOC admin here, can you please contact meoff the list.
thanks.
-mw
11 matches
Mail list logo
