RE: Level 3 issues

["Murphy, Jay, DOH" <Jay.Murphy () state nm us>]

You know, it gets pretty thick through here, when all you people slam on
someone, to justify pent up angst or whatever the cause may be.  I
worked for Level 3 as a NOC engr, and they follow standards as other
companies do, and for that matter a standard that I AM SURE all of you
follow in some form, degree, or another within the employ you are with,
so shut up already won't you. Give me a 10-minute break already. Half of
the crap that you guys serve up is crap, just that, CRAP! Get to talking
real 'net stuff, not filler, fodder, just facts man. Oh yeah the other
thing, quit your whining.


Jay Murphy 
IP Network Specialist 
NM Department of Health 
ITSD - IP Network Operations 
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502 
Bus. Ph.: 505.827.2851

"We move the information that moves your world." 






-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Pfankuch [mailto:bpfankuch () cpgreeley com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 3:18 PM
To: Alex H. Ryu
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: RE: Level 3 issues

I have heard this story several times.  The train derailment was
yesterday in New York unless it has not made it to news.google.com on a
search for train derail.  Issues did not start until 1030 MST.  It seems
highly unlikely that a train derailment yesterday caused major network
issues today.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex H. Ryu [mailto:r.hyunseog () ieee org]
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:44 PM
To: Blake Pfankuch
Cc: Derek Bodner; nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Level 3 issues

It seems that there was fiber cut because of train derailment around NY
area.

Alex



Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> Any word on the actual cause of the issue?
>
> From: Derek Bodner [mailto:subscribedlists () derekbodner com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 11:53 AM
> To: Blake Pfankuch
> Cc: Jon Wolberg; Jason Cheslock; nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: Level 3 issues
>
> Looks like most providers here in the east coast are routing through
level3 again, and I'm not seeing any packet loss or latency anymore.
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Blake Pfankuch
<bpfankuch () cpgreeley com<mailto:bpfankuch () cpgreeley com>> wrote:
> Seems to be normalizing here in Colorado as well, however still having
occasional packet loss to NY.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Wolberg 
> [mailto:jon () defenderhosting com<mailto:jon () defenderhosting com>]
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 11:40 AM
> To: Jason Cheslock
> Cc: nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Level 3 issues
>
> Confirmed here as well.
>
>
> Jon
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Cheslock" 
> <sangreviento () gmail com<mailto:sangreviento () gmail com>>
> To: "marco" <marco () zero11 com<mailto:marco () zero11 com>>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 1:35:45 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada 
> Eastern
> Subject: Re: Level 3 issues
>
> According to L3, this issue should be fixed and we should start seeing
>
>
> > the traffic normalizing.
> > Can anyone confirm?
>
> Here in Richmond Virginia, everything seems to be back to normal now.
>  Traffic coming from my Comcast connection can get through L3 now.
>
>
>  7 11 ms 13 ms 11 ms
te-0-3-0-0-cr01.mclean.va.ibone.comcast.net<http://te-0-3-0-0-cr01.mclea
n.va.ibone.comcast.net> [68.
> 86.91.121]
>  8 10 ms 11 ms 12 ms 
> xe-11-1-0.edge1.Washington1.Level3.net<http://xe-11-1-0.edge1.Washingt
> on1.Level3.net> [4.79.231 .9]
>  9 12 ms 17 ms 18 ms 
> vlan89.csw3.Washington1.Level3.net<http://vlan89.csw3.Washington1.Leve
> l3.net> [4.68.17.190]
>
>  10 12 ms 17 ms 17 ms 
> ae-84-84.ebr4.Washington1.Level3.net<http://ae-84-84.ebr4.Washington1.
> Level3.net> [4.69.134.1 85]
>  11 16 ms 26 ms 16 ms 
> ae-3-3.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net<http://ae-3-3.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net
> > [4.69.132.94]
>  12 32 ms 30 ms 17 ms 
> ae-81-81.csw3.NewYork1.Level3.net<http://ae-81-81.csw3.NewYork1.Level3
> .net> [4.69.134.74]
>
>  13 15 ms 19 ms 16 ms 
> ae-3-89.edge1.NewYork1.Level3.net<http://ae-3-89.edge1.NewYork1.Level3
> .net> [4.68.16.142]
>
>
>
> --
> Derek Bodner
> subscribedlists () derekbodner com<mailto:subscribedlists () derekbodner com
> >



______________________________________________________________________
This inbound email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
System.
______________________________________________________________________


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited 
unless specifically provided under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this message. -- This email has been scanned by the 
Sybari - Antigen Email System.