Luke S Crawford wrote:
> Richard A Steenbergen writes:
>> You've never seen a single port go bad on a switch? I can't even count
>> the number of times I've seen that happen. Not that I'm not suggesting
>> the OP wasn't the victim of a human error like unplugging the wrong port
>> and they just
Richard A Steenbergen writes:
>
> You've never seen a single port go bad on a switch? I can't even count
> the number of times I've seen that happen. Not that I'm not suggesting
> the OP wasn't the victim of a human error like unplugging the wrong port
> and they just lied to him, that happens
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:15:37 CDT, Chris Adams said:
> Oh, come on; everybody knows 1 doesn't belong in that list! :-)
Microcode bug, obviously. ;)
pgp1QWLWs9wYw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Once upon a time, Warren Kumari said:
> xxx.yyy.zzz.1
> xxx.yyy.zzz.2
> xxx.yyy.zzz.3
> xxx.yyy.zzz.5
> xxx.yyy.zzz.7
> xxx.yyy.zzz.11
> xxx.yyy.zzz.13
> xxx.yyy.zzz.17
> ...
> xxx.yyy.zzz.197
> xxx.yyy.zzz.199
Oh, come on; everybody knows 1 doesn't belong in that list! :-)
--
Chris Adams
Syst
On Sep 17, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
[ SNIP ]
Story 2. Had a customer report that they were getting extremely slow
transfers to another network, despite not being able to find any
packet
loss. Shifting the traffic to a different port to reach the same
network
resolved
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Michael J McCafferty <
m...@m5computersecurity.com> wrote:
[ clip ]
>I am curious; what do you expect the average reliability of your
> FastE
> or GigE copper cross-connects at a colo?
>
>
At the physical layer, near zero. If "jiggling and wiggling" is c
We seem to have the highest failure rate on cross connects from ds3's
and t1's.
-carlos
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Palmer [mailto:bpal...@fxcm.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:59 PM
To: Michael J McCafferty; nanog
Subject: Re: cross connect reliability
We'
We've never had a fiber CC fail.
We HAVE had DS3 and T1s fail. Those were due to other customer circuits being
installed near ours and bumping them.
>>> Michael J McCafferty 9/17/2009 5:45 PM >>>
All,
Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider. From
memory, this is the
In message <20090917234547.gt51...@gerbil.cluepon.net>, Richard A Steenbergen w
rites:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 03:35:37PM -0700, Charles Wyble wrote:
> >
> > Random failures of a single ports connectivity bizzare and annoying.
> > Whole switches? Seen it.
> > Whole panels? Seen it.
> > Who
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 03:35:37PM -0700, Charles Wyble wrote:
>
> Random failures of a single ports connectivity bizzare and annoying.
> Whole switches? Seen it.
> Whole panels? Seen it.
> Whole blades? Seen it.
>
> Single port on a switch or patch panel? Never.
You've never seen a single
Having work in high traffic colo spaces around the world for the last
ten years or so, in my experience this type of issue is very rare. If
you are having this type of "quality" issue, I would sit down with
your sales rep and ask to be stepped through their processes, there is
obviously som
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I once had a circuit go down because the fiber connector wasn't crimped
on correctly, and the fiber pulled out of the connector while a tech was
working in the cable tray nearby. After we opened a ticket about the
issue, said tech "fixed" it by s
It's just not as interesting or hard to troubleshoot as a poorly made
patch cable that's had one conductor go open, only goes open when the wire
is tugged a certain direction, nicked wires shorting, a switch port with
its RX side burned out, an RJ45 plug who's mistreated tab no longer works,
an
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:45:36PM -0700, Michael J McCafferty wrote:
> All,
> Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider. From
> memory, this is the 6th cross-connect to fail while in service, in 4yrs
> and recently there was a bad SFP on their end as well. This seemes l
Because no-one is stealing pairs anymore?
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> Not really. That's all too easy to diagnose and fix. Poorly terminated
> and or mistreated cabling is far more likely. I wrote a long post about all
> the crap termination and poor treatment I've see
Not really. That's all too easy to diagnose and fix. Poorly terminated
and or mistreated cabling is far more likely. I wrote a long post about
all the crap termination and poor treatment I've seen...but canceled the
message.
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Mike Lieman wrote:
We have a winner!
On Th
On 09/17/2009 06:37 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> [lots of stuff deleted].
>
A famous one that can happen with some techs is that they make jumpers
from solid wire with generic rj45 plugs (yes, I've seen this recently
from several folks who should know better). These will last somewhere
around a
We have a winner!
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> Or until someone pulls out the wrong cable (which has happened to me).
>
> Regards
> Marshall
>
>
> ~Seth
>>
>>
>>
>
>
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 17:59 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Or until someone pulls out the wrong cable (which has happened to me).
>
Not that I would know from experience, but it is rumored that certain
telco techs in the NYC area can be persuaded to "borrow" other people's
pairs for less
[lots of stuff deleted].
We've seen cross-connects fail at sites like "E" and others. Generally
speaking, it is a human-error issue and not a component failure one. Either
people are being sloppy and aren't reading labels, or the labels aren't there.
In a cabinet situation, every cabinet doe
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 17, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Michael J McCafferty wrote:
All,
Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider.
From
memory, this is the 6th cross-connect to fail while in service, in 4yrs
and recently there was a bad SFP on
Alex Balashov wrote:
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Michael J McCafferty wrote:
>>> All,
>>> Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider.
>>> From
>>> memory, this is the 6th cross-connect to fail while in service, in 4yrs
>>> and recently there was a bad SFP on their end as well
From: Michael J McCafferty
Organization: M5Hosting
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:45:36 -0700
To: nanog
Subject: cross connect reliability
All,
Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider. From
memory, this is the 6th cross-connect to fail while in service, in 4yrs
and recently
On Sep 17, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Michael J McCafferty wrote:
All,
Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider.
From
memory, this is the 6th cross-connect to fail while in service, in
4yrs
and recently there was a bad SFP on their end as well. This seem
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Michael J McCafferty wrote:
All,
Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider. From
memory, this is the 6th cross-connect to fail while in service, in 4yrs
and recently there was a bad SFP on their end as well. This seemes like
a high failure rate
Hello Michael:
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael J McCafferty [mailto:m...@m5computersecurity.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:46 PM
> To: nanog
> Subject: cross connect reliability
>
> All,
> Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider.
> From
> me
From: Michael J McCafferty [mailto:m...@m5computersecurity.com]
>
> All,
> Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo
> provider. From memory, this is the 6th cross-connect to
> fail while in service, in 4yrs and recently there was a
> bad SFP on their end as well. This seemes
We have never had a xconnect fail, ever. And we have several. This is over a
6 year period.
William
--Original Message--
From: Michael J McCafferty
To: nanog
Subject: cross connect reliability
Sent: Sep 17, 2009 4:45 PM
All,
Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our col
Michael J McCafferty wrote:
> All,
> Today I had yet another cross-connect fail at our colo provider. From
> memory, this is the 6th cross-connect to fail while in service, in 4yrs
> and recently there was a bad SFP on their end as well. This seemes like
> a high failure rate to me. When I as
29 matches
Mail list logo
