[Merit Network Operations Center: 01/29/92 ENSS 131 Ann Arbor unreachable 11:07 - 11:14 EST]

Thu Jan 30 15:40:20 UTC 1992

	Sean,
	   It was a long day yesterday.  Yes, this was an IS-IS
	adjacency timeout, and information was collected, but not
	enough to nail the problem down.  We still have our 
	procedures in place, and we wait for future occurances.

	Kraig

	P.S.  NWG, you didn't get my first message because of the
	      return address I had on Sean's original message.

------------------------------------------------------------------
> To: tko at merit.edu
> Cc: nwg at nic.near.net, skennedy at nic.near.net, nearnet-ops at nic.near.net
> Subject: Re: [Merit Network Operations Center: 01/29/92 ENSS 131 Ann Arbor unreachable 11:07 - 11:14 EST] 
> In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:06:32 -0500.
>              <9201300106.AA25646 at home.merit.edu> 
> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 92 00:40:56 -0500
> From: skennedy at BBN.COM
> 
> 
> 
>  So this was one of the fabled IS_IS disconnects, or not? You didn't answer 
> that question. 
> 
>  Thanks for the info!
> 
>    Sean
> 
> 
> 
> -------
> >> Received: from nic.near.net by LABS-N.BBN.COM id aa26680; 29 Jan 92 20:06 EST
> >> Received: from nic.near.net by nic.near.net id aa21463; 29 Jan 92 20:06 EST
> >> Received: from merit.edu by nic.near.net id aa21456; 29 Jan 92 20:06 EST
> >> Return-Path: <tko at merit.edu>
> >> Received: from home.merit.edu by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0)
> >> 	id AA21945; Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:06:33 -0500
> >> Received: by home.merit.edu (4.1/client-0.9)
> >> 	id AA25646; Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:06:32 EST
> >> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:06:32 EST
> >> From: tko at merit.edu
> >> Message-Id: <9201300106.AA25646 at home.merit.edu>
> >> To: nwg at nic.near.net, skennedy at nic.near.net
> >> Subject: Re:  [Merit Network Operations Center: 01/29/92 ENSS 131  Ann Arbor unreachable 11:07 - 11:14 EST]
> >> Cc: nearnet-ops at nic.near.net
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 	Sean,
> >> 
> >> 	   The Ann Arbor T3/T1 interconnect was down during the
> >> 	outage.  I'll have a followup message posted to NSR   
> >> 	mentioning that fact.  As for moving the interconnect,
> >> 	there was no need to for this outage.  The routing was
> >> 	almost completely restored before I could get the Houston
> >> 	interconnect up.  The complete transfer to the Houston 
> >> 	interconnect will only be used if the Ann Arbor node begins 
> >> 	to drop IBGP sessions while it is in the middle of reestablishing
> >> 	others.  Otherwise, it really does not do much to help the
> >> 	situation, rather, it causes more routing changes to take place.
> >> 
> >> 	Kraig 
> >>