Anyone from frontiernet.net on here?
Jeff Richmond
jeff.richmond at gmail.com
Wed Jul 10 03:35:31 UTC 2013
All it looks like I am seeing packet loss there across all of our peering sessions with them, so looks like a problem on their network. I'll ask our NOC to open up a ticket with them though just to see if we can find out what the issue is.
Thanks,
-Jeff
On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Warren Bailey <wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
> There are some decent sized attacks taking place on gear near London, I believe. Could be a result of that?
>
>
> Sent from my Mobile Device.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Janet Sullivan <janets at nairial.net>
> Date: 07/09/2013 5:01 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Anyone from frontiernet.net on here?
>
>
> I've been seeing really bad packet loss between PCCW and frontier, and so far haven't been able to make any traction with anyone on either side. I'm betting that the ??? is a peering point either in London or Ashburn.
>
> uk.bgp4.net (0.0.0.0) Tue Jul 9 20:39:53 2013
> Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields qu
> it Packets Pings
> Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
> 1. 212.111.33.230 0.0% 43 1.7 0.7 0.5 1.8 0.3
> 2. 212.111.33.237 0.0% 43 2.3 1.9 1.1 22.7 3.3
> 3. 63.218.13.221 0.0% 43 2.3 15.6 1.1 230.3 45.9
> 4. ???
> 5. 74.40.2.173 23.3% 43 177.9 150.3 147.8 177.9 7.0
> 6. 74.40.2.193 20.9% 43 149.9 149.9 149.1 161.2 2.1
> 7. 74.40.3.241 18.6% 43 149.6 152.4 149.1 193.2 8.8
> 8. 74.40.5.49 28.6% 43 148.1 150.8 147.8 192.1 9.9
> 9. 74.40.5.54 26.2% 43 148.3 150.5 147.9 218.7 12.6
> 10. 74.40.5.46 33.3% 42 149.5 154.0 149.2 212.8 14.0
> 11. 74.40.3.137 16.7% 42 147.4 148.7 146.9 163.0 4.1
> 12. 74.40.1.154 29.3% 42 148.2 153.6 147.7 206.7 14.2
> 13. 50.34.2.162 35.7% 42 150.2 150.4 149.8 156.3 1.2
> 14. 50.46.150.55 26.2% 42 150.7 151.0 150.5 152.0 0.4
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list