nanog mailing list archives
RE: McAfee/AT&T Issue
From: "Calhoun, Matthew" <mcalhoun () iodatacenters com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:25:02 -0700
While I agree with all of your assessments, this traceroute was being provided to illustrate where traffic *appears* to be stopping when we are seeing the issue. It's intermittent, so some times we can reach the destination hosts (via HTTP, HTTPS, etc.) and sometimes we can't. When we can reach the destination hosts (via HTTP), the traceroute completes When we can't reach the destination hosts (via HTTP), the traceroute won't complete and the last hop is the host that I indicated in my previous post (12.118.225.22) Thanks, Matt -----Original Message----- From: Justin Krejci [mailto:jkrejci () usinternet com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:15 AM To: kgasso () visp net; Calhoun, Matthew Cc: 'NANOG list' Subject: RE: McAfee/AT&T Issue We've also seen that busy routers are slower to respond to requests directed at them as opposed to traffic routing thru them which can continue to work without issue or performance loss. -----Original Message----- From: Kameron Gasso [mailto:kgasso-lists () visp net] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 12:03 PM To: Calhoun, Matthew Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: McAfee/AT&T Issue Calhoun, Matthew wrote:
9 212 ms 200 ms * 12.118.225.22 <--------Problem occurring
here. Sometimes traffic gets through, sometimes it doesn't
10 29 ms 26 ms 26 ms 216.143.71.219 11 26 ms 26 ms 26 ms www.mcafeeasap.com [208.69.153.135]
Looks a lot like that hop is rate-limiting ICMP to itself. Everything beyond it seems to be good from the looks of it. -Kam
Current thread:
- Cisco NOS Bryant Valencia (Feb 18)
- Re: Cisco NOS Anton Kapela (Feb 18)
- McAfee/AT&T Issue Calhoun, Matthew (Feb 18)
- Re: McAfee/AT&T Issue kris foster (Feb 18)
- Re: McAfee/AT&T Issue Kameron Gasso (Feb 18)
- RE: McAfee/AT&T Issue Justin Krejci (Feb 18)
- RE: McAfee/AT&T Issue Calhoun, Matthew (Feb 18)
- McAfee/AT&T Issue Calhoun, Matthew (Feb 18)
- Re: Cisco NOS Anton Kapela (Feb 18)