RE: Sprint / C&W peering issues?

[Jeff Loughridge <jeffl () sprint net>]

We have applied a temporary fix to relieve congestion with C&W in
Atlanta.  Additional bandwidth is pending.  Just to clarify, the 
Sprintlink backbone is not experiencing capacity issues nor are we
dissatisfied with the performance across our private peering connections
as a whole.  In the majority of cases, our proactive monitoring and
traffic graphing tools allow us to correct potential problems before they
become apparent to Sprint customers and others.

Please contact our noc via phone or e-mail when you have concerns about
our network.  I am confident of their ability to address problems and
escalate if necessary.


Jeff Loughridge
Operations Engineering
Backbone Operations


On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Matt Levine wrote:

> Sprint seems to be having capacity issues, I've noticed L3/Sprint SanJose
> goes thru some serious degradation during most of the day..  Supposedly the
> issue has been open in both NOC's for 2-3 months...they're "working on it"..
> Have you tried contacting C&W about it?  Sprint wasn't incredibly helpful,
> but L3 provided some information for us..
>
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
> --
> Matt Levine, CTO <mlevine () efront com>
> eFront Media, Inc. - http://www.efront.com
> Phone: +1 714 428 8500 ext. 504
> Fax  : +1 949 203 2156
> ICQ  : 17080004
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> jlewis () lewis org
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 4:04 PM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Sprint / C&W peering issues?
>
>
>
> The past few days, I've been noticing packet loss, apparently at the
> points where Sprint and C&W exchange traffic.  Today, I emailed a note
> about this including the output from a few mtr's in each direction to
> noc () sprint net, and though I got no reply, an hour or so later, I noticed
> packets were taking a slightly different route (apparently going through a
> different peering connection in a different city if you believe the
> hostnames) and the packet loss was gone and round trip times much better.
>
> I left the office for a bit, and now that I'm back, I see the packets are
> back to using the old peering connection that I can only assume must be
> overloaded.  Anyone know what the deal is?
>
>                            Matt's traceroute  [v0.42]
> orldfl-ns-1.atlantic.net                               Fri Jan 19 18:58:51
> 2001
> Keys:  D - Display mode    R - Restart statistics    Q - Quit
>                                            Packets               Pings
> Hostname                                %Loss  Rcv  Snt  Last Best  Avg
> Worst
>  1. orldflwcom-br-1-fe0-0.atlantic.net     0%   30   30     0    0    0
> 1
>  2. sl-gw8-orl-3-0-TS11.sprintlink.net     0%   30   30     1    0    1
> 1
>  3. sl-bb11-orl-5-2.sprintlink.net         0%   30   30     1    1    1
> 2
>  4. sl-bb21-atl-9-1.sprintlink.net         0%   30   30    11   11   11
> 12
>  5. sl-bb2-atl-0-0-0.sprintlink.net        0%   30   30    12   11   30
> 190
>  6. core3-serial2-0-0.Atlanta.cw.net      20%   24   30    37   33   37
> 41
>  7. corerouter1.Atlanta.cw.net            27%   22   30    34   33   36
> 50
>  8. acr1-loopback.Atlantaald.cw.net       20%   24   30    36   32   37
> 39
>  9. bar7-loopback.Atlantaald.cw.net       27%   22   30    48   33   37
> 48
> 10. ???
>
> Hop 10 is a router with some packet filtering...no response is expected
> there.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Jon Lewis *jlewis () lewis org*|  I route
>  System Administrator        |  therefore you are
>  Atlantic Net                |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________