Qwest Support

Chris Woodfield rekoil at semihuman.com
Fri Apr 5 17:20:41 UTC 2002


I think the main point here isn't the fact that the poster's routing was, in fact, 
not set up properly; it was the fact that he was unable to get a live body at Qwest 
to check it out.

-C

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:24:53PM -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
> 
> I suppose. Except it's not even certain you were having a problem of any
> kind at all.
> 
> Qwest's presence or absence from public IX's really has nothing to do with
> your routes being announced. In fact, Qwest privately peers with all the
> other large networks. While there are many peering sessions at the public
> NAPs, most traffic is carried over private network interconnects, at least
> domestically. Certain peering points in Europe (Linx), tend to run the other
> way.
> 
> In fact, if Qwest were publically peering with other networks, it might be a
> reason why your routes through UUNet were being prefered - private peer
> originated routes are almost always assigned higher local preferences in
> carrier networks, then public peer originated routes.
> 
> I'm not sure your annoyance with Qwest has any basis in their lack of
> performance, as far as IP routing. BGP decision rules and other networks'
> routing policies will govern which paths are used for your routes. Here is
> an example...
> 
> - Network X peers with UUNet in 8 locations. Network X also peers with
> Qwest, lets say in 6 locations. For whatever reason, network X chooses
> UUNet's routes to you over, Qwest's. This could be due to local routing
> policy, dictating that 701 routes get a higher local pref. Or AS path
> lengths could be the same, and the decision could be falling to something
> like router ID. Whatever.
> 
> - In general, all the UUNet peering will get treated the same by Network X's
> routing policy. This won't always be the case, but let's say that none of
> the peering links are congested, etc. So, a certain number of paths are
> carried throughout Network X via iBGP. If UUNet's routes "won" at all those
> peering points, you will not see any paths through Qwest on a single carrier
> route server like Nitrous.
> 
> - Route-views, and the like are different animals. They get ebgp multihop
> views from many providers, so you will tend to see paths from many different
> vantage points, and are more likely to see paths from both your upstreams.
> 
> ISPs get a heavy volume of calls every day. While Qwest may not have the
> greatest customer service, it's not like you were actually down or had a
> qwest originated routing issue. If that were the case, my sympathy would be
> greater.
> 
> - Daniel Golding
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Andy Dills
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:43 PM
> To: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Qwest Support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Qwest support is indeed terrible.
> 
> Turned up the DS3 today...the connectivity seems fine. I decided to check
> a couple of routeservers (nitrous); all had my much-prepended UUnet
> announcement, but NONE had my Qwest announcement. Not a huge deal, but
> curious to me.  Is Qwest just not at the public peering points? When I
> checked route-views.oregan-ix.net, I felt better, but yet annoyed. Even
> with the prepends, most networks were announcing UUnet's path.
> 
> So I decided to call them and ask...man what a mistake. The guy is like,
> "Ok, hold on, let me get somebody from our IP noc." 10 minutes goes by,
> and he comes back with "Couldn't get anybody in the IP noc, let me try to
> get somebody in your install group" (being that I turned up the DS3
> today). Comes back another 10 minutes later with "Well, I left a message
> for them, but there isn't much I can do. Nobody seems to be answering
> their phone. If somebody doesn't call you back within 30 minutes, here's
> a number to call..."
> 
> So what if my routes were actually hosed? I'd just be screwed because they
> can't get anybody at the IP noc?
> 
> I wait. Nobody calls back within 30 minutes. I call the number he gave me.
> Busy. You gotta be kidding me.
> 
> So I call the main number again, talk to somebody different. She has me
> hold, and then brings some guy on the line "who can help me". I start to
> talk about route servers, and he's immediately like "Woah, this is a BGP
> problem...I can't help you. Let me try to get somebody from the IP noc."
> 
> So, I wait on hold for about 15 minutes, only to be given dial tone.
> 
> Please tell me it isn't always THIS bad?
> 
> Andy
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Andy Dills                              301-682-9972
> Xecunet, LLC                            www.xecu.net
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20020405/9a1467e6/attachment.sig>


More information about the NANOG mailing list