nanog mailing list archives
Re: FW: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews
From: Tim Evens <tim () snas io>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:45:12 -0700
You didn't mention details about which ASN or prefixes you were checking. Are you referring to ASN 14607 that only advertises two prefixes 129.77.0.0/16 and 2620:0:2810::/48? Based what we see over the weekend (using routeviews data), we see: Event Start Time: 2017-09-09 11:29:23 UTC (2017-09-09 07:29:23 EDT) Event End Time: 2017-09-09 13:31:30 UTC (2017-09-09 09:31:30 EDT) Are the above times correct? We see the routes withdraw and then come back. For example: http://demo-rv.snas.io:3000/dashboard/db/prefix-history?orgId=2&var-prefix=129.77.0.0&var-prefix_len=16&var-asn_num=All&var-router_name=All&var-peer_name=All&from=1504908000000&to=1505203200000 When you checked routeviews, which router and peer were you looking at? When you did a "show ip bgp ..." did you include the prefix length? If not, it would have then shown you 0/0 or 128/5, depending on which router you were on. --Tim On 9/13/17, 8:43 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Huff" <nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of mhuff () ox com> wrote: Both should have been similar. In the first case we lost power to all of our BGP border routers that are peered with the upstream providers In the second case, I did an explicit "shut" on the interface connected to the upstream provider that appeared "stuck" after an hour after the outage. From: <christopher.morrow () gmail com> on behalf of Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 10:58 AM To: Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com> Cc: nanog2 <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com<mailto:mhuff () ox com>> wrote: This weekend our uninterruptible power supply became interruptible and we lost all circuits. While I was doing initial debugging of the problem while I waited on site power verification, I noticed that there was still paths being shown in rviews for the circuit that were down. This was over an hour after we went hard down and it took hours before we were back up. explicit vs implicit withdrawals causing different handling of the problem routes? I worked with our providers last night to verify there weren't any hanging static routes, etc... We shut the upstream circuit down and watched the convergence and saw that eventually all the paths disappeared. Given what we saw on Saturday, what would cause route-views to cache the paths that long? Some looking glass sites only show what they are peered with or at most what their peers are peered with, that's why I've always used route-views. What looking glass sites other than route-views would people recommend? ripe ris.
Current thread:
- Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews Matthew Huff (Sep 13)
- Re: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews Christopher Morrow (Sep 13)
- Re: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews Matthew Huff (Sep 13)
- Re: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews Christopher Morrow (Sep 13)
- Message not available
- Re: FW: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews Tim Evens (Sep 15)
- RE: FW: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews Matthew Huff (Sep 16)
- Re: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews Matthew Huff (Sep 13)
- Re: Reliability of looking glass sites / rviews Christopher Morrow (Sep 13)