CW....also CNN

Mon Oct 26 19:09:52 UTC 1998

> <html>
> ??<br>
> <br>
> anybody knowing what's going on with CW ??<br>
> <br>
> also anybody from CNN.....you got barely connectivity southbound<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> done from nitrous....<br>
> <br>
> <font size=3>Tracing the route to cnn.com (207.25.71.25) <br>
> 1 p219.t3.ans.net (192.157.69.13) 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec <br>
> 2 h12-1.t60-6.Reston.t3.ans.net (140.223.61.29) [AS 1673] 8 msec 8 msec 8
> msec <br>
> 3 f2-1.t60-2.Reston.t3.ans.net (140.223.60.132) [AS 1673] 8 msec 8 msec 8
> msec <br>
> 4 h9-1.t104-0.Atlanta.t3.ans.net (140.223.61.22) [AS 1673] 28 msec 28
> msec 28 msec <br>
> 5 f2-0.c104-10.Atlanta.t3.ans.net (140.222.104.120) [AS 1673] 32 msec 28
> msec 28 msec <br>
> 6 * * * <br>
> 7 * * h0-0.enss3222.t3.ans.net (207.25.70.6) [AS 1324] !A <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> --<br>
> <br>
> Bert<br>
> Datanet Security<br>
> Naples, Fla<br>
> <br>
> </font></html>

Your e-mail is barely showing through all that HTML.

We are a CW customer, and what I am seeing is that traffic destined for
CW address blocks is going by way of Sprint.  In one case, traffic to
my network, when originating at best.com, looks like:

traceroute to 206.97.151.8 (206.97.151.8), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  core1-fe8-1-0.mv.best.net (206.184.139.129)  102.991 ms  0.630 ms  0.899 ms
 2  Hssi4-0-0.GW1.SCL1.ALTER.NET (137.39.133.89)  2.435 ms  1.839 ms  3.061 ms
 3  103.ATM3-0.XR2.SCL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.145.118)  1.533 ms  2.539 ms  2.327 ms
 4  294.ATM2-0.TR2.SCL1.ALTER.NET (146.188.146.26)  3.034 ms  2.493 ms  2.858 ms
 5  107.ATM6-0.TR2.LAX2.ALTER.NET (146.188.137.145)  8.721 ms  8.147 ms  8.474 ms
 6  298.ATM7-0.XR2.LAX4.ALTER.NET (146.188.249.13)  8.273 ms  8.605 ms  9.889 ms
 7  192.ATM6-0-0.BR1.LAX1.ALTER.NET (146.188.248.29)  8.647 ms  9.412 ms  11.511 ms
 8  sl-bb4-ana-1-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.181)  161.911 ms  157.648 ms  160.786 ms
 9  sl-bb22-ana-3-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.1.29)  150.348 ms  148.671 ms  155.872 ms
10  sl-bb2-ana-4-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.1.14)  162.540 ms * *
11  * core3-hssi3-0.Bloomington.cw.net (206.157.77.41)  2126.225 ms *
12  * * core1.Dallas.cw.net (204.70.4.217)  988.692 ms
13  border1-fddi-0.Dallas.cw.net (204.70.114.18)  996.910 ms  1015.055 ms  1014.235 ms
14  inturnet.Dallas.cw.net (204.70.115.42)  1003.216 ms * *
15  * bosch.intur.net (206.97.151.8)  997.691 ms *

Traffic from me to best.com looks like:

traceroute to shell4.ba.best.com (206.184.139.135), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  eth-0.cisco-1.intur.net (206.97.151.1)  2.106 ms  2.073 ms  2.088 ms
 2  border1-serial3-0.Dallas.cw.net (204.70.115.41)  72.321 ms  16.649 ms  203.451 ms
 3  core1-fddi-0.Dallas.cw.net (204.70.114.17)  4.789 ms  5.113 ms  10.839 ms
 4  bordercore1.SanFrancisco.cw.net (166.48.12.1)  72.705 ms  42.307 ms  41.859 ms
 5  best-internet.SanFrancisco.cw.net (166.48.13.250)  1001.36 ms  1052.2 ms  1010.41 ms
 6  core1-hssi8-0-0.mv.best.net (206.86.228.89)  979.218 ms  1007.01 ms  1000.45 ms
 7  shell4.ba.best.com (206.184.139.135)  1013.52 ms *  1018.15 ms

My guess is that at hop #5 the returns start going by way of the asymetric
return path, and hence the long delay (and often high lossage).

The problem seems to be that CW address space is being sucked into ALTER.NET
or sprintlink.net for some reason.  Is this still Qwest?

-- 
 --    *-----------------------------*      Phil Howard KA9WGN       *    --
  --   | Inturnet, Inc.              | Director of Internet Services |   --
   --  | Business Internet Solutions |       eng at intur.net        |  --
    -- *-----------------------------*      philh at intur.net       * --