North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: comcast routing issue question

  • From: Matthew Petach
  • Date: Thu Nov 30 15:27:53 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ctalDqj8XzvwnbLxO5kfW1G1iCSg++PW6I/BuQHoxQv1Whn1ffhfP6zWrws9jua7/8CyQg4gutMFzh7saMzdcmVZSuMqvS9g9qwguGxrX1whGWr9gjw3+pxE7eFevzAwHTxnpZF20v4Ckox7KbFfbgvVv3YDtI2WdWF93APVeoE=

On 11/29/06, Jim Popovitch <jimpop@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 00:06 -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> Question:  What could cause the first trace below to succeed, but the
> second trace to fail?
>
> $ mtr 69.61.40.35
> HOST: blue                        Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best Wrst
>   1. 192.168.3.1                   0.0%     1    4.3   4.3   4.3   4.3
>   2. 73.62.48.1                    0.0%     1   10.6  10.6  10.6  10.6
>   3. 68.86.108.25                  0.0%     1   11.4  11.4  11.4  11.4
>   4. 68.86.106.54                  0.0%     1    9.8   9.8   9.8   9.8
>   5. 68.86.106.9                   0.0%     1   20.5  20.5  20.5  20.5
>   6. 68.86.90.121                  0.0%     1   11.3  11.3  11.3  11.3
>   7. 68.86.84.70                   0.0%     1   27.7  27.7  27.7  27.7
>   8. 64.213.76.77                  0.0%     1   24.5  24.5  24.5  24.5
>   9. 208.50.254.150                0.0%     1   39.4  39.4  39.4  39.4
>  10. 208.49.83.237                 0.0%     1   46.6  46.6  46.6  46.6
>  11. 208.49.83.234                 0.0%     1   40.7  40.7  40.7  40.7
>  12. 69.61.40.35                   0.0%     1   43.9  43.9  43.9  43.9
>
> $ mtr 69.61.40.34
> HOST: blue                        Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst
>   1. 192.168.3.1                   0.0%     1    1.1   1.1   1.1   1.1
>   2. 73.62.48.1                    0.0%     1    9.9   9.9   9.9   9.9
>   3. 68.86.108.25                  0.0%     1    9.3   9.3   9.3   9.3
>   4. 68.86.106.54                  0.0%     1    9.6   9.6   9.6   9.6
>   5. 68.86.106.9                   0.0%     1    9.0   9.0   9.0   9.0
>   6. 68.86.90.121                  0.0%     1   18.2  18.2  18.2  18.2
>   7. 68.86.84.70                   0.0%     1   23.9  23.9  23.9  23.9
>   8. ???                          100.0     1    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
>
>
> Taking the 69.61.40.33/28 subnet a bit further, .36 drops at 68.86.84.70
> but .37 - .39 make it.  .40 drops at 68.86.84.70, but .41 makes it.
>
> Crazy.

Btw, the problem has now been resolved, however I'm still curious as to
what scenario could have caused that.

-Jim P.
eBGP multihop peering across a pair of 10 gigE links with
static routes pointing to the remote router loopback; one
link goes south, but the interface still shows as up/up,
and voila, depending upon the hash, your packets may
go across the good link, or they may disappear into the
black hole of oblivion.

This is why multipath is a good thing, and eBGP multihop
with static routes is a Bad Thing(tm).

Matt