Comments on: Internet broken for ASN32 speakers today. http://www.andyd.net/2008/internet-broken-for-asn32-speakers-today/ Andy Davidson\'s tech blog Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:27:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: andy http://www.andyd.net/2008/internet-broken-for-asn32-speakers-today/comment-page-1/#comment-58 andy Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:00:20 +0000 http://www.andyd.net/index.php/2008/12/10/internet-broken-for-asn32-speakers-today/#comment-58 No new info has come out from either of those networks yet (that I have seen), but 196629 did tell me they don't use confeds internally. It was my second post of yesterday which detailed this error - the 65000 appearing in the dfz was throwing me off course at the start of the debugging. No new info has come out from either of those networks yet (that I have seen), but 196629 did tell me they don’t use confeds internally.

It was my second post of yesterday which detailed this error – the 65000 appearing in the dfz was throwing me off course at the start of the debugging.

]]> By: JZP http://www.andyd.net/2008/internet-broken-for-asn32-speakers-today/comment-page-1/#comment-57 JZP Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:57:07 +0000 http://www.andyd.net/index.php/2008/12/10/internet-broken-for-asn32-speakers-today/#comment-57 Details regaridng what implementation is used by 196629 as well as 35320 would be useful, as both originating and propagating the invalid attribute is clearly a mistake. Possibly a classic interop issue that one implementation assumse no one will originate crap and the other assumes no one will propagate crap? This appears to be differrent prefixes than your NANOG post; I presume this is the actual root issue that appeared at first to be as65000 in-path? Cheers! jzp Details regaridng what implementation is used by 196629 as well as 35320 would be useful, as both originating and propagating the invalid attribute is clearly a mistake. Possibly a classic interop issue that one implementation assumse no one will originate crap and the other assumes no one will propagate crap? This appears to be differrent prefixes than your NANOG post; I presume this is the actual root issue that appeared at first to be as65000 in-path?

Cheers!

jzp

]]> By: andy http://www.andyd.net/2008/internet-broken-for-asn32-speakers-today/comment-page-1/#comment-54 andy Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:39:17 +0000 http://www.andyd.net/index.php/2008/12/10/internet-broken-for-asn32-speakers-today/#comment-54 Hi, Darkuncle I had an email from the AS196629 NOC saying "WE have stopped sending anounces and will work with our uplink to solve the problem". Best wishes Andy Hi, Darkuncle

I had an email from the AS196629 NOC saying “WE have stopped sending anounces and will work with our uplink to solve the problem”.

Best wishes
Andy

]]> By: darkuncle http://www.andyd.net/2008/internet-broken-for-asn32-speakers-today/comment-page-1/#comment-53 darkuncle Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:48:38 +0000 http://www.andyd.net/index.php/2008/12/10/internet-broken-for-asn32-speakers-today/#comment-53 thanks for posting this - I was tearing out hair this morning trying to figure out what was causing the session to die every 10 seconds (serves me right for not staying current on NANOG lately). I am hopeful that this has been fixed in OpenBSD-4.4, but if not, I'm sure a patch will be forthcoming quickly. thanks for posting this – I was tearing out hair this morning trying to figure out what was causing the session to die every 10 seconds (serves me right for not staying current on NANOG lately). I am hopeful that this has been fixed in OpenBSD-4.4, but if not, I’m sure a patch will be forthcoming quickly.

]]>