Ubiquity<->Mzima routing loop

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

William Pitcock

2008-07-18 19:27:56 UTC

Hi,

Can someone at Ubiquity or Mzima fix this routing loop:

traceroute to hg.atheme.org (72.37.225.164), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 64.62.134.193 12.402 ms 12.370 ms 12.363 ms
2 ge5-0.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (206.223.119.62) 16.003 ms 15.985 ms
15.964 ms
3 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 14.139 ms 14.858
ms 14.838 ms
4 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 15.875 ms 15.854 ms
16.497 ms
5 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 14.747 ms 14.763
ms 14.745 ms
6 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 16.405 ms 8.773 ms
8.758 ms
7 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 9.831 ms * *
8 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 4.417 ms 4.403 ms
4.381 ms
9 * * *
10 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 4.293 ms 4.933 ms
4.914 ms
11 * * *
12 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 14.527 ms 14.526 ms
14.438 ms
13 * * *
14 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 14.352 ms 14.335 ms
3.770 ms
15 * * *
16 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 3.684 ms 13.897 ms
13.897 ms
17 * * *
18 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 8.599 ms 8.581 ms
8.668 ms
19 * * ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 8.246 ms
20 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 8.584 ms 8.565 ms
8.545 ms
21 * * ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 8.119 ms
22 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 8.456 ms 8.931 ms
8.913 ms
23 * ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 6.049 ms *
24 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 15.862 ms 15.754 ms
15.736 ms
25 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 7.132 ms * 7.092
ms
26 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 15.293 ms 15.998 ms
10.752 ms
27 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 5.353 ms 5.336
ms *
28 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 3.800 ms 3.854 ms
3.823 ms
29 * * *
30 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 3.228 ms 4.426 ms
13.019 ms

Thanks!

William

Aaron Glenn

2008-07-18 19:40:01 UTC

Permalink

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM, William Pitcock

Hi,

How long ago did you contact Ubiquity or Mzima?

William Pitcock

2008-07-18 20:02:22 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Post by Aaron Glenn
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM, William Pitcock

Hi,

How long ago did you contact Ubiquity or Mzima?

Sadly, I don't have any contact with either one, but I do need to be
able to access that server, and it's responsible admin is no where to be
found.

William

Aaron Glenn

2008-07-18 20:32:27 UTC

Permalink

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:02 PM, William Pitcock

Post by William Pitcock
Hi,
Sadly, I don't have any contact with either one, but I do need to be
able to access that server, and it's responsible admin is no where to be
found.

common sense and courtesy says you should contact ubiquity, then mzima
before even thinking of hitting up nanog@
and, wild guess, it looks like it's probably on the ubiquity side of things.

<the more you know image>

William Pitcock

2008-07-18 20:49:25 UTC

Permalink

Post by Aaron Glenn
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:02 PM, William Pitcock

Post by William Pitcock
Hi,
Sadly, I don't have any contact with either one, but I do need to be
able to access that server, and it's responsible admin is no where to be
found.

common sense and courtesy says you should contact ubiquity, then mzima
and, wild guess, it looks like it's probably on the ubiquity side of things.

I'm aware what side it's on. However, I didn't have contact information
for an actual human on either side of the link, so I posted on ***@.

Normally, I wouldn't take such an action, but the availability of
services on that machine (revision control for several open source
projects as a starting point), makes the machine's availability
essential.

William

G***@Stream.Com

2008-07-18 23:07:16 UTC

Permalink

This is not a routing loop. It is simply a route that was not tied down via a static route to NULL with a weight of 254.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Wall" [***@gmail.com]
Sent: 07/18/2008 06:57 PM AST
To: "William Pitcock" <***@systeminplace.net>
Cc: ***@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Ubiquity<->Mzima routing loop

I'd like to rip on Mzima as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure how
they could "fix" this routing loop, shy of some creative ACLs.

You should try contacting Ubiquity, as this traceroute looks like an
issue on their (Mzima's customer's) side.

Paul Wall

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM, William Pitcock

Post by William Pitcock
Hi,
traceroute to hg.atheme.org (72.37.225.164), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 64.62.134.193 12.402 ms 12.370 ms 12.363 ms
2 ge5-0.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (206.223.119.62) 16.003 ms 15.985 ms
15.964 ms
3 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 14.139 ms 14.858
ms 14.838 ms
4 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 15.875 ms 15.854 ms
16.497 ms
5 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 14.747 ms 14.763
ms 14.745 ms
6 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 16.405 ms 8.773 ms
8.758 ms
7 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 9.831 ms * *
8 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 4.417 ms 4.403 ms
4.381 ms
9 * * *
10 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 4.293 ms 4.933 ms
4.914 ms
11 * * *
12 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 14.527 ms 14.526 ms
14.438 ms
13 * * *
14 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 14.352 ms 14.335 ms
3.770 ms
15 * * *
16 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 3.684 ms 13.897 ms
13.897 ms
17 * * *
18 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 8.599 ms 8.581 ms
8.668 ms
19 * * ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 8.246 ms
20 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 8.584 ms 8.565 ms
8.545 ms
21 * * ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 8.119 ms
22 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 8.456 ms 8.931 ms
8.913 ms
23 * ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 6.049 ms *
24 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 15.862 ms 15.754 ms
15.736 ms
25 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 7.132 ms * 7.092
ms
26 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 15.293 ms 15.998 ms
10.752 ms
27 ge0-ubiquity.cust.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.158) 5.353 ms 5.336
ms *
28 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 3.800 ms 3.854 ms
3.823 ms
29 * * *
30 ge0-12.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (72.37.148.157) 3.228 ms 4.426 ms
13.019 ms
Thanks!
William

Paul Wall

2008-07-19 02:25:36 UTC

Permalink

Isn't that what a routing loop is, when it loops back out to the
transit/interface from which it entered?

Paul

Post by G***@Stream.Com
This is not a routing loop. It is simply a route that was not tied down via a static route to NULL with a weight of 254.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 07/18/2008 06:57 PM AST
Subject: Re: Ubiquity<->Mzima routing loop
I'd like to rip on Mzima as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure how
they could "fix" this routing loop, shy of some creative ACLs.
You should try contacting Ubiquity, as this traceroute looks like an
issue on their (Mzima's customer's) side.
Paul Wall
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM, William Pitcock

Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.

2008-07-19 03:04:51 UTC

Permalink

Man it's been awhile...
"Godwin..." errr maybe it's "Nazi" - or perhaps "Boursey" damn how do
we stop this again?!?!
Please only reply if you remember the magic word to make this thread
stop!

I think it is several words:

No operational discussions on NANOG.

--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs

V***@vt.edu

2008-07-20 02:52:01 UTC

Permalink

No, a true routing loop will transit several hops and end back up at the same
routers.

Out of curiosity, what's the biggest loop anybody's come across? I see
plenty of "two adjacent routers pointing at each other", and the occasional
3-router loop and the rare 4-router loop.