| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |
| Who | What | When |
|---|---|---|
| *** | ant has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
ant has joined #arpnetworks | [02:11] |
| fink has joined #arpnetworks
mercutio has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) mercutio has joined #arpnetworks mercutio has quit IRC (Client Quit) | [02:21] | |
| mercutio has joined #arpnetworks | [02:34] | |
| mercutio has quit IRC (Quit: WeeChat 1.0.1) | [02:43] | |
| mercutio has joined #arpnetworks
awyeah has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) awyeah has joined #arpnetworks tooth has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) tooth has joined #arpnetworks | [02:53] | |
| fink has quit IRC (Quit: fink) | [02:59] | |
| .... (idle for 17mn) | ||
| fink has joined #arpnetworks | [03:16] | |
| ................ (idle for 1h19mn) | ||
| mercutio | that google mtu thing gets stranger, even ip's of google caches have strangely small packets
looks like 1454 mtu | [04:35] |
| ................................................ (idle for 3h57mn) | ||
| *** | awyeah has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection) | [08:32] |
| ................. (idle for 1h24mn) | ||
| bardo has joined #arpnetworks | [09:56] | |
| ................ (idle for 1h16mn) | ||
| neish_ has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
mike-burns has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) neish has joined #arpnetworks | [11:12] | |
| mkb has joined #arpnetworks
jpalmer has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | [11:21] | |
| .... (idle for 19mn) | ||
| mike-burns has joined #arpnetworks
ChanServ sets mode: +o mike-burns | [11:40] | |
| jpalmer has joined #arpnetworks | [11:48] | |
| awyeah has joined #arpnetworks | [11:54] | |
| ................. (idle for 1h20mn) | ||
| acf_ | routing weirdness
http://paste.unixcube.org/k/f7eaf | [13:14] |
| .... (idle for 16mn) | ||
| mercutio | savvis suck
slashdot is using savvis and has huge pings too and doesn't show anything weird in traceroute from arp other than huge ping so i imagine savvis just have messed up peering with qwest.net as shown in your trace and peer with them in london | [13:30] |
| acf_ | funny because Qwest and Savvis are both CenturyLink | [13:31] |
| mercutio | i didn't know that | [13:31] |
| acf_ | just played with the PCCW and Savvis looking glasses
looks like they peer in LAX | [13:31] |
| mercutio | oh
oh that wasn't your normal connection | [13:31] |
| acf_ | that was from arp
*to arp | [13:31] |
| mercutio | it's 160 msec to slashdot.org which is hosted in chicago
(from arp) | [13:32] |
| acf_ | yea probably by London | [13:32] |
| mercutio | yeah
but it looks like it's los angeles to chicago :/ | [13:32] |
| acf_ | forward path from ARP probably is
the return path is screwed up | [13:32] |
| mercutio | ping jumps from 1 msec average to 156 msec average
in single hop yeah it has been for ages but it's savvis -> qest -> pccw -> trit | [13:32] |
| acf_ | the qwest -> pccw is in London... | [13:34] |
| mercutio | does the looking glass show any paths? | [13:34] |
| acf_ | I didn't look at bgp | [13:34] |
| mercutio | the savvis -> qest is in london too isn't it?
oh maybe not | [13:34] |
| acf_ | it is
cr2-ten-0-7-4-0.londonuk1.savvis.net ... 63-235-40-189.dia.static.qwest.net | [13:34] |
| mercutio | i don't think level3, and ntt have amazingly close connections with savvis
i think cogent/comcast/etc are closer | [13:35] |
| acf_ | that kind of explains it
the funny part is that pccw and savvis peer in LA | [13:35] |
| mercutio | that would mean savvis carrying traffic to la | [13:36] |
| acf_ | I tried the Savvis lg traceroute from LA...
same thing | [13:36] |
| mercutio | oh
i'm just trying that now heh | [13:36] |
| acf_ | LA -> London -> LA :P
but tracing to 63.218.212.14 (hop 9 in the trace to ARP) goes directly via LA | [13:36] |
| mercutio | uhh
NTT have direct connection like forward path to slashdot is AS2914 AS3561 | [13:37] |
| acf_ | so it should be going via NTT instead of savvis? | [13:38] |
| mercutio | yeah
but i'm struglging to use bgp ipv4 unicast is what i want? it's not coming up with anything | [13:38] |
| acf_ | idk anything about bgp | [13:39] |
| mercutio | i know i hate savvis's looking glass :)
telnet://route-server.savvis.net damn it's not working | [13:39] |
| acf_ | that would have been really nice.. | [13:40] |
| mercutio | yes
most of the looking glasses are really slow | [13:40] |
| acf_ | can you explain why when tracing directly to 63.218.212.14 from the Savvis lg, the path goes via lax
(1.419 ms) | [13:41] |
| mercutio | i dunno what that ip is | [13:41] |
| acf_ | but when you trace arpnetworks.com, the hop 63.218.212.14 has a latecny of | [13:41] |
| mercutio | oh it's pccw
i just did traceroute from pccw looking glass and saw that ip it's 0 msec from pccw to arp we kin dof need to see what routes they see | [13:41] |
| acf_ | 143.880 ms
hmm ok | [13:43] |
| mercutio | what it's not seeing arp at all?
atlanta quickly finds no routes los angeles slowly doesn't seem to do anything | [13:43] |
| acf_ | % Network not in table
:/ | [13:44] |
| mercutio | https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nanog-/MLWLu1NQZpI
so it's been broken for years | [13:45] |
| acf_ | ah ok | [13:45] |
| mercutio | but yeah i assume savvis don't send to ntt because pccw are cheaper than ntt to send to?
maybe pccw are customer | [13:46] |
| acf_ | it's still super strange that it would be going via london imo | [13:47] |
| mercutio | yeah good luck getting it fixed :) | [13:57] |
| .... (idle for 17mn) | ||
| acf_ | acf_ facepalms
the Savvis NOC mailbox is full... I was trying to ask them about their looking glass / route server | [14:14] |
| mercutio | haha
well if it was broken in 2011 i imagine they don't care much | [14:18] |
| acf_ | it's always fun to listen to NSPs tell me stright up that their crap is broken
and that they're not going to fix it | [14:20] |
| https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption
wonder why the green line is so squiggly the interesting thing is on the very last datapoint, "6to4/Teredo" is 0.00% rather than the 0.01 and 0.02 it's been throughout 2013 and 2014 I wonder if that's related to the broken PTMUD problem | [14:32] | |
| mercutio | yeah that is strange
it maybe that they're trying stuff on/off a lot to measure performance | [14:41] |
| ..... (idle for 24mn) | ||
| *** | joepie91 has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) | [15:05] |
| joepie91 has joined #arpnetworks | [15:12] | |
| ................ (idle for 1h16mn) | ||
| fink has quit IRC (Quit: fink) | [16:28] | |
| toeshred has quit IRC (Quit: WeeChat 1.0.1)
toeshred has joined #arpnetworks | [16:35] | |
| ................... (idle for 1h32mn) | ||
| mnathani | how do ip address allocations work when you colocate? For instance if I have an ASA firewall and get assigned say a /29. Does the WAN interface of the firewall have to have a different /30 assigned? Allowing the entire /29 to be used for hosts, VMs etc? | [18:11] |
| mercutio | there's more than one way people do stuff
you can get a /29 routed to you over your normal ip address, or you can have just the /29 if you have just the /29 you'll usually have 5 ip addresses to play with err that was a generic response with arp dedicated server i have a /29 and just the /29 | [18:15] |
| ........................... (idle for 2h14mn) | ||
| mnathani | I guess I am curious how that setup works when you have multiple devices, rather than a physical server
cable comes in > connects to firewall > one port for physical web server, another for physical mail server, another for physical DNS server, all running on their own public IP address. I would thing they would point to the firewall for their default gateway s/thing/think | [20:29] |
| BryceBot | <mnathani> I would think they would point to the firewall for their default gateway | [20:31] |
| mnathani | but what happens on the uplink interface of the firewall, does it use a different address block, say part of a /30? | [20:31] |
| mercutio | mnathani: fwiw i have a /32 for adsl, with a routed /29 at home
the internal lan interface on modem is on the /29 ppp makes it easy to have a /32 though but from my understanding, people using hardware firewalls now days often have 3 ip addresses for firewalls, and it bridges one for each firewall, and one for master ip because having a firewall decreases your reliablity, and people who want to spend money on firewalls tend to want to spend money on redundancy there's actually lots of ways of doing things i kind of like routed /32s myself. | [20:43] |
| BryceBot | That's what she said!! | [20:48] |
| mercutio | where you just route internet ip's onto rfc1918 address space.
so your gateway can be rfc1918 even but you're bound to an internal ip err bound to an internet ip for programs that need it so like your webserver maybe on 192.168.6.20, your mail server on 192.168.6.21 your internet ip 4.1.1.1 your mail 4.1.1.2 and you route 4.1.1.1 to 192.168.6.20 and add 4.1.1.1 as a seconday interface on 192.168.6.20 and you set programs to bind to that ip that need it which also means you cna do fancy things like have the ip's bounce between hosts. and have a vpn to access 192.168.6.0/24 the other thing is that you can do /31s more often now too and so you could link using /31 to wan but it tends to kill the odd/even low/high thing | [20:48] |
| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |