North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: ATM Question
- From: Thomas P. Brisco
- Date: Fri Oct 06 09:10:19 2000
We were seeing something similar yesterday (and yup -
it's still there today). We also noted that if you turn on the
record-route options, then your problem will disappear (I suspect
packet options may cause delivery to be ok - though while the RR
option helps, DF doesnt, but "timestamp" will). We're not seeing
packet loss in any other scenario. I noticed, suspiciously, that
there is always a very "hockey toothed" (every other packet) pattern
in the lossage (load balancing onto a botched circuit?).
Things I've played with:
* size 50% (tried 800, 1200, 2500)
* DF 50%
* RR 100%
* pattern seems to be generally 50%
* timestamp 100%
* TOS 50%
We've opened up a case with cisco ... seems pretty
bizarre, but could it be the ATM switch?
As long as we're not using the source address of
the ATM network - things are fine (e.g. sourcing off of
the loopback, going one hop back, etc).
- Tom
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Richard Inhand wrote:
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 04:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Richard Inhand <chapinhand@yahoo.com>
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: ATM Question
>
>
> I'm currently looking into a weird problem at an ATM
> peering point on the West Coast, when I ping from my
> peer router to any of my peers I get some but not
> total packet loss, when I ping from one router back or
> use the loopback interface as source things are fine.
> Whereas, with all my other ATM peering point routers,
> for example at MAE-EAST I can ping my peers cleanly
> from the same router. This isn't (to my knowledge)
> affecting traffic just wondering why this strange
> phenomenon should occur only in the one place.
>
> Any body else had any similar problems?
>
> Richard Hand
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
|
