cisco.com

Tue Aug 4 14:24:33 UTC 2009

On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Scott Wolfe wrote:

> No route for 198.133.219.0/24 in 22820 from our upstream (3356 and  
> 174).
>
> -Scott W

Through Cogent

  tme$ traceroute 198.133.219.26
traceroute to 198.133.219.26 (198.133.219.26), 64 hops max, 40 byte  
packets
  1  dmz-mct2.americafree.tv (63.105.122.1)  0.673 ms  0.394 ms  0.243  
ms
  2  gi0-7.na21.b002176-1.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.99.206.153)   
0.690 ms  0.721 ms  0.970 ms
  3  te9-2.3687.mpd01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.20.43.49)  0.984  
ms  0.965 ms  0.732 ms
  4  vl3491.ccr02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.7.234)  0.976 ms   
0.923 ms  0.726 ms
  5  te8-3.ccr02.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.26.134)  54.971 ms  
te4-3.ccr02.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.26.138)  3.705 ms  13.960  
ms
  6  sl-st30-ash-0-11-3-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.205)  1.973 ms   
2.089 ms  1.975 ms
  7  sl-crs1-dc-0-13-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.25.12)  3.495 ms   
3.043 ms  2.734 ms
  8  sl-bb20-dc-3-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.15.10)  2.989 ms sl-crs1- 
rly-0-13-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.212)  5.824 ms sl-crs1- 
rly-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.222)  5.860 ms
  9  sl-crs1-rly-0-9-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.13)  5.613 ms   
5.134 ms  4.477 ms
10  sl-gw18-sj-13-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.6)  71.695 ms  71.306  
ms  72.170 ms
11  144.228.44.14 (144.228.44.14)  72.156 ms  72.895 ms  71.916 ms
12  sjce-dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.89)  72.154 ms 144.228.44.14  
(144.228.44.14)  72.301 ms sjce-dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.89)   
72.329 ms
13  sjck-dmzdc-gw2-gig5-2.cisco.com (128.107.224.73)  72.422 ms sjce- 
dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.89)  71.853 ms sjck-dmzdc-gw2- 
gig5-2.cisco.com (128.107.224.73)  72.173 ms
14  sjck-dmzdc-gw2-gig5-2.cisco.com (128.107.224.73)  72.393 ms *   
71.648 ms
15  * * *
16  * * *
17  * * *
18  * * *

Could other Sprint routes be affected ?

Regards
Marshall

>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sjk [mailto:sjk at sleepycatz.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:49 AM
> To: Dominic J. Eidson
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: cisco.com
>
> We have seen the route for cisco withdrawn from 208 and 2828. Facebook
> seems fine
>
> Dominic J. Eidson wrote:
>>
>> Both work from Austin, TX.
>>
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Alex Nderitu wrote:
>>
>>> Facebook seems to also be affected.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: R. Benjamin Kessler <rbk at mnsginc.com>
>>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>>> Subject: cisco.com
>>> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:34:46 -0400
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Gang -
>>>
>>> I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net
>>> (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause  
>>> and ETR?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>