On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:13 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Rubens,
>
> On Jul 6, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> >> Not sure the RPZ hammer has been brought out in force yet. I've seen a
> few recommendations on various mailing lists, but no concerted effort.
> Unfortunately, there is no easy
I would appreciate it if anyone could put me in touch or send me any
tips to deal with packet loss and problems routing to google, but only
along certain paths from certain points in the network (like as in ecmp
problems) from as21719
I would like to rule out local issues if possible and that
Looks like we'll have another second in 2016:
http://www.space.com/33361-leap-second-2016-atomic-clocks.html
Time to start preparing
Hi all,
I am writing because I do not understand what is happening. I ran
mtr against our email server and www.teco.comand below are the results.
I am not a network engineer so I am at a loss. I think what I am seeing
is maybe a hand off issue, between Frontier and Level3Miami2. If I am
Hi Philip,
I can't address your immediate concern, but I do have some hints
regarding traceroute:
1/ 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
No offence, but i swear that mtr should come with a license to use it. I get
more
questions from people accusing us of network issues with mtr in hand...
You shoudlnt care that there's 80% packet loss in the middle of your route,
unless
you have actual traffic to lag-101.ear3.miami2.level3.net.
> On Jul 7, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Phillip Lynn wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am writing because I do not understand what is happening. I ran mtr
> against our email server and www.teco.comand below are the results. I am not
> a network engineer so I am at a loss. I think what I am seeing is maybe a
On 7/7/16 1:17 PM, Phillip Lynn wrote:
Hi all,
I am writing because I do not understand what is happening. I ran mtr
against our email server and www.teco.comand below are the results. I
am not a network engineer so I am at a loss. I think what I am seeing
is maybe a hand off issue, between
Yes. It indicates that there was never a time when you did not know everything
:)
-mel beckman
> On Jul 7, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>
>> On 7/7/16 1:17 PM, Phillip Lynn wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am writing because I do not understand what is happening. I ran mtr
>> against ou
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 08:32:19PM +, Mel Beckman said:
>Yes. It indicates that there was never a time when you did not know
everything :)
>
> -mel beckman
The issue isnt knowing everything, it's making accusations of issues while you
still
dont know how much you dont know. (~D. Rumsfe
Ken,
I should have made clear I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to Brielle's
comment:
> Is it bad that the first thing that came to mind is "Oh FFS, another troll"?
-mel beckman
> On Jul 7, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 08:32:19PM +, Mel Beckman
On 7/7/16 3:50 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Ken,
I should have made clear I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to Brielle's
comment:
> Is it bad that the first thing that came to mind is "Oh FFS, another troll"?
I'd never say I was always knowledgeable, but after the thread the other
day, and
Anyone have a contact at www.rt.com that can encourage them to to delete
their bad ?
Some users on some devices fail to reach www.rt.com due to this dns
failure. I know about various work arounds, looking for RT.com to fix this
by deleting the bad record.
Shared from ISC Dig for iOS
;
Dotted-quad notation is completely valid, and works fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Presentation
http://[:::37.48.108.112] loads fine in my browsers.
*Spencer Ryan* | Senior Systems Administrator | sr...@arbor.net
*Arbor Networks*
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
w
On Thursday, July 7, 2016, Spencer Ryan wrote:
> Dotted-quad notation is completely valid, and works fine.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Presentation
>
> http://[:::37.48.108.112] loads fine in my browsers.
>
>
> Spencer,
It may be legit on your network, but people generally
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 06:36:23PM -0700, Ca By wrote:
> On Thursday, July 7, 2016, Spencer Ryan wrote:
>
> > Dotted-quad notation is completely valid, and works fine.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Presentation
> >
> > http://[:::37.48.108.112] loads fine in my browsers.
Dear Nanog community
We are currently experimenting TCP degradation issues in some metro markets
where there are multiple POPs and the IP packets have to pass multiple L3
access devices (routers) before reaching the core router. The more L3 hops
that it goes through the more degradation we see in
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
> ICMP is allowed to be dropped by intervening routers. Someone will quote an
> RFC
> at us shortly.
Hi Ken,
That's not correct. Routers might not generate an ICMP time-exceeded
packet for every packet whose TTL reaches zero, but that's not the
s
18 matches
Mail list logo
