Mailing List Archive: Sprint traffic

Sprint traffic

Feb 17, 1997, 11:57 AM

Post #1 of 8 (716 views)

If I may intrude...

(I'm not a member of NANOG, just an evesdropper..)

Does anyone have the email for the NOC @ sprint(link).

There seems to be "som'in screwwy" with traffic
about their system at Cheyenne. (But I'm no techie)

11:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 610 msec.
12:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 278 msec.
13:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 2644 msec. (WOW!)
14:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 312 msec.
15:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 288 msec.
16:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 397 msec.
17:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 455 msec.
18:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 320 msec.
19:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 296 msec.
20:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.25] in 363 msec.
21:Received echo from ? [144.232.1.26] in 298 mse

Thanks in advance!

Richard Newcomb
NAMSS, Inc.

rnewcomb@namss.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: Sprint traffic [ In reply to ]

jwhall at noc

Feb 17, 1997, 12:38 PM

Post #2 of 8 (706 views)

Permalink

Sprintlink's noc.

noc@sprintlink.net

Josh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: Sprint Traffic [ In reply to ]

rnewcomb at namss

Feb 17, 1997, 12:51 PM

Post #3 of 8 (710 views)

Permalink

Thanks ALL!

I'm very grateful for the address!

(noc@sprintlink)

Richard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: Sprint traffic [ In reply to ]

msr at interpath

Feb 17, 1997, 1:15 PM

Post #4 of 8 (712 views)

Permalink

<from whois on sprintlink-dom>

Alternate Contact:
Sprint Network Info. & Support Center (SPRINT-NOC)
noc@sprintlink.net
(800) 669-8303

HOWEVER, if you are not a client, tell your provider. That will allow
equally technical people to talk and get things resolved as quickly as
possible. They are going to want to know what you did to get this
information.

Just looking at it, and not knowing from where you are getting this, it
may be normal. Pings are a low priority for most hardware, and are subject
to being dropped.

Finally, this is a forum for discussing North American Network operations,
not operations within a provider. I would always suggest going to your
upstream provider first for operational difficulties. That is what you pay
them for.

+mike
network operations
INTERPATH

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: Sprint traffic [ In reply to ]

michael at memra

Feb 17, 1997, 2:11 PM

Post #5 of 8 (705 views)

Permalink

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Michael S. Ramsey wrote:

> <from whois on sprintlink-dom>
>
> Alternate Contact:
> Sprint Network Info. & Support Center (SPRINT-NOC)
> noc@sprintlink.net

The general lesson to be derived from this is to check whois
information first, then try the standard addresses documented in
http://www.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-stdaddr-02.txt
and only if these fail, should you ask on the list.

Does everybody on this list support all the addresses in the above draft?

Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: Sprint traffic [ In reply to ]

jmr at wizard

Feb 17, 1997, 6:45 PM

Post #6 of 8 (705 views)

Permalink

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Michael S. Ramsey wrote:

> Just looking at it, and not knowing from where you are getting this, it
> may be normal. Pings are a low priority for most hardware, and are subject
> to being dropped.

They weren't being dropped though, they were getting bounced back and
forth between two addresses. There was indeed a problem, but Sprint has
stabilized it and assumes it is fixed. The problem lasted from at least
2am PST early this morning until after noon today.

/* John */

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sprint traffic [ In reply to ]

rnewcomb at namss

Feb 18, 1997, 1:48 AM

Post #7 of 8 (716 views)

Permalink

RE: Sprint Traffic [ In reply to ]

rnewcomb at namss

Feb 18, 1997, 1:48 AM

Post #8 of 8 (710 views)

Permalink

Thanks ALL!

I'm very grateful for the address!

(noc@sprintlink)

Richard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -