#689 closed request (fixed)
Connectivity to ietf.org?
| Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | minor | Milestone: | ietf-089 |
| Component: | other | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | My Current Location: | ||
| My MAC Address: | My OS: |
Description
Greetings!
I've been getting reports of slow connections to ietf.org web pages from the meeting. I am not seeing anything on the web server that indicates an issue, and page loads from outside the meeting network seem normal.
Pinging a machine on the meeting network from the ietf server shows transit times of 140 - 317 ms. Can you have a look from your end and see what sort of times you are seeing, and if there is perhaps an issue between the meeting network and the ietf server when viewed from your end?
Thanks!
Matt
Change history (15)
comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by
| Component: | network → other |
|---|---|
| Priority: | tbd → minor |
| Status: | new → assigned |
comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by
| Status: | assigned → accepted |
|---|
comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by
Here's a current ping to one of our folk's laptop: ietfa:/a/www/www6/meeting # ping -c 10 31.133.164.96 PING 31.133.164.96 (31.133.164.96) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=299 ms 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=342 ms 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=176 ms 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=220 ms 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=5 ttl=48 time=263 ms 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=6 ttl=48 time=306 ms 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=7 ttl=48 time=350 ms 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=8 ttl=48 time=184 ms 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=9 ttl=48 time=227 ms 64 bytes from 31.133.164.96: icmp_seq=10 ttl=48 time=271 ms --- 31.133.164.96 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9012ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 176.869/264.282/350.546/58.295 ms Here's a ping to the ticker server: ietfa:/a/www/www6/meeting # ping -c 10 tickets.meeting.ietf.org PING trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=139 ms 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=139 ms 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=139 ms 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=138 ms 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=5 ttl=48 time=139 ms 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=6 ttl=48 time=139 ms 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=7 ttl=48 time=139 ms 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=8 ttl=48 time=139 ms 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=9 ttl=48 time=139 ms 64 bytes from trac.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.229.8): icmp_seq=10 ttl=48 time=138 ms --- trac.meeting.ietf.org ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9009ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 138.954/139.141/139.418/0.464 ms Matt On Mar 3, 2014, at 6:55 AM, IETF Meeting/NOC <tickets@meeting.ietf.org> wrote: > #689: Connectivity to ietf.org? > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > Reporter: mlarson@… | Owner: cdoyle@… > Type: request | Status: assigned > Priority: minor | Milestone: ietf-89 > Component: other | Resolution: > Keywords: | My Current Location: > My MAC Address: | My OS: > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > Changes (by cdoyle@…): > > * priority: tbd => minor > * status: new => assigned > * component: network => other > > > Comment: > > Would you mind checking now, please? We observed similar behavior this > morning, but it's looking much better. > > -- > Ticket URL: <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/ticket/689#comment:1> > IETF Meeting/NOC <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org> > IETF Meeting - NOC pages ------------------------------------------- Matthew Larson, Asst. IT Director Association Management Solutions Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538 http://www.amsl.com
comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by
Both of those hosts are here at the London meeting. Are you here as well? If so, what room are you testing from?
comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by
Sorry, I wasn't clear there. I am not on site. Those tests were run from the ietf server in Sunnyvale. Matt On Mar 3, 2014, at 7:40 AM, IETF Meeting/NOC <tickets@meeting.ietf.org> wrote: > #689: Connectivity to ietf.org? > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > Reporter: mlarson@… | Owner: cdoyle@… > Type: request | Status: accepted > Priority: minor | Milestone: ietf-89 > Component: other | Resolution: > Keywords: | My Current Location: > My MAC Address: | My OS: > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > > Comment (by cdoyle@…): > > Both of those hosts are here at the London meeting. Are you here as well? > If so, what room are you testing from? > > -- > Ticket URL: <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/ticket/689#comment:4> > IETF Meeting/NOC <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org> > IETF Meeting - NOC pages ------------------------------------------- Matthew Larson, Asst. IT Director Association Management Solutions Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538 http://www.amsl.com
comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by
I'm going to do a few tests, but your ping times actually don't seem all that out of the ordinary considering where you are relative to us. I'll see what our reachability looks like from some other global endpoints and we'll see if we see consistent data, or if we see inconsistencies.
comment:7 Changed 4 years ago by
It seems that page loads from the ietf.org domain at the meeting are normal now, so whatever the issue was may well be behind us. Matt On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:03 AM, IETF Meeting/NOC <tickets@meeting.ietf.org> wrote: > #689: Connectivity to ietf.org? > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > Reporter: mlarson@… | Owner: cdoyle@… > Type: request | Status: accepted > Priority: minor | Milestone: ietf-89 > Component: other | Resolution: > Keywords: | My Current Location: > My MAC Address: | My OS: > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > > Comment (by anonymous): > > I'm going to do a few tests, but your ping times actually don't seem all > that out of the ordinary considering where you are relative to us. I'll > see what our reachability looks like from some other global endpoints and > we'll see if we see consistent data, or if we see inconsistencies. > > -- > Ticket URL: <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/ticket/689#comment:6> > IETF Meeting/NOC <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org> > IETF Meeting - NOC pages ------------------------------------------- Matthew Larson, Asst. IT Director Association Management Solutions Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538 http://www.amsl.com
comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by
Matt,
I fear part of the issue may be the IPv6 path. Both of the tests you used were v4 only. I'm appending the traceroute6 from management.meeting.ietf.org to www.ietf.org, and it looks relatively sane. Could you do a reverse path test?
- Jim
traceroute6 www.ietf.org
traceroute6 to www.ietf.org (2001:1900:3001:11::2c) from 2001:67c:370:229::12, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets
1 rtra 0.305 ms 0.286 ms 0.256 ms
2 2a00:2380:300c:3000::2c 2.126 ms 1.659 ms 1.723 ms
3 2a00:2380:c::130 7.352 ms
2a00:2380:c::12e 6.106 ms
2a00:2380:c::130 7.009 ms
4 2a00:2380:c::59 1.784 ms
2a00:2380:c::67 2.595 ms
2a00:2380:c::59 1.806 ms
5 xe-5-3-1.edge5.London1.Level3.net 2.299 ms
xe-5-0-1.edge5.London1.Level3.net 2.517 ms
xe-5-1-2.edge5.London1.Level3.net 2.447 ms
6 vl-51.edge3.London1.Level3.net 2.518 ms 2.830 ms 2.464 ms
7 vl-4086.edge1.NewYork1.Level3.net 71.816 ms 71.224 ms 71.787 ms
8 vl-4040.edge1.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.413 ms 139.696 ms 139.374 ms
9 vl-90.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.713 ms
vl-80.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.037 ms
vl-90.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.722 ms
10 ASSOCIATION.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.492 ms 139.829 ms 139.101 ms
11 * *C
comment:9 Changed 4 years ago by
Here's a traceroute6 back to management.meeting.ietf.org ietfa:/etc/apache2/vhosts.d # traceroute6 management.meeting.ietf.org traceroute to management.meeting.ietf.org (2001:67c:370:229::12), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP 1 2001:1900:3001:11::1 (2001:1900:3001:11::1) 0.270 ms 0.306 ms 0.239 ms 2 ae6-447.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net (2001:1900:2100::2061) 0.341 ms 0.490 ms 0.407 ms 3 vl-90.edge1.SanJose1.Level3.net (2001:1900:1a:8::8) 0.972 ms 0.751 ms 0.706 ms 4 2001:1900:4:1::5e (2001:1900:4:1::5e) 69.138 ms 68.567 ms 69.083 ms 5 vl-4086.edge3.London1.Level3.net (2001:1900:6:1::11) 136.845 ms 137.041 ms 137.322 ms 6 vl-51.edge5.London1.Level3.net (2001:1900:101:1::a) 137.313 ms vl-52.edge5.London1.Level3.net (2001:1900:101:2::a) 137.666 ms vl-51.edge5.London1.Level3.net (2001:1900:101:1::a) 137.629 ms 7 BT-NET.edge5.London1.Level3.net (2001:1900:5:2:2::1a1e) 137.311 ms 137.432 ms 137.845 ms 8 2a00:2380:c::66 (2a00:2380:c::66) 146.918 ms 2a00:2380:c::5c (2a00:2380:c::5c) 143.387 ms 2a00:2380:c::66 (2a00:2380:c::66) 144.679 ms 9 2a00:2380:c::131 (2a00:2380:c::131) 139.440 ms 2a00:2380:c::12f (2a00:2380:c::12f) 139.853 ms 2a00:2380:c::131 (2a00:2380:c::131) 139.244 ms 10 2a00:2380:300c:3000::2d (2a00:2380:300c:3000::2d) 139.660 ms 140.663 ms 139.529 ms 11 management.meeting.ietf.org (2001:67c:370:229::12) 140.581 ms 139.789 ms 139.994 ms Matt On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:06 AM, IETF Meeting/NOC <tickets@meeting.ietf.org> wrote: > #689: Connectivity to ietf.org? > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > Reporter: mlarson@… | Owner: cdoyle@… > Type: request | Status: accepted > Priority: minor | Milestone: ietf-89 > Component: other | Resolution: > Keywords: | My Current Location: > My MAC Address: | My OS: > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > > Comment (by anonymous): > > Matt, > I fear part of the issue may be the IPv6 path. Both of the tests you > used were v4 only. I'm appending the traceroute6 from > management.meeting.ietf.org to www.ietf.org, and it looks relatively sane. > Could you do a reverse path test? > > - Jim > >> traceroute6 www.ietf.org > traceroute6 to www.ietf.org (2001:1900:3001:11::2c) from > 2001:67c:370:229::12, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets > 1 rtra 0.305 ms 0.286 ms 0.256 ms > 2 2a00:2380:300c:3000::2c 2.126 ms 1.659 ms 1.723 ms > 3 2a00:2380:c::130 7.352 ms > 2a00:2380:c::12e 6.106 ms > 2a00:2380:c::130 7.009 ms > 4 2a00:2380:c::59 1.784 ms > 2a00:2380:c::67 2.595 ms > 2a00:2380:c::59 1.806 ms > 5 xe-5-3-1.edge5.London1.Level3.net 2.299 ms > xe-5-0-1.edge5.London1.Level3.net 2.517 ms > xe-5-1-2.edge5.London1.Level3.net 2.447 ms > 6 vl-51.edge3.London1.Level3.net 2.518 ms 2.830 ms 2.464 ms > 7 vl-4086.edge1.NewYork1.Level3.net 71.816 ms 71.224 ms 71.787 ms > 8 vl-4040.edge1.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.413 ms 139.696 ms 139.374 ms > 9 vl-90.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.713 ms > vl-80.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.037 ms > vl-90.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.722 ms > 10 ASSOCIATION.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net 139.492 ms 139.829 ms 139.101 > ms > > 11 * *^C > > -- > Ticket URL: <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/ticket/689#comment:8> > IETF Meeting/NOC <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org> > IETF Meeting - NOC pages ------------------------------------------- Matthew Larson, Asst. IT Director Association Management Solutions Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538 http://www.amsl.com
comment:10 Changed 4 years ago by
Ok, the network path seems sane and I'm not currently seeing any issues. If there's no objection (meaning no updates in the next 15 min), I'm going to close this ticket.
- Jim
comment:11 Changed 4 years ago by
Seems reasonable to me. Thanks! Matt On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:24 AM, IETF Meeting/NOC <tickets@meeting.ietf.org> wrote: > #689: Connectivity to ietf.org? > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > Reporter: mlarson@… | Owner: cdoyle@… > Type: request | Status: accepted > Priority: minor | Milestone: ietf-89 > Component: other | Resolution: > Keywords: | My Current Location: > My MAC Address: | My OS: > ----------------------------+-------------------------------- > > Comment (by anonymous): > > Ok, the network path seems sane and I'm not currently seeing any issues. > If there's no objection (meaning no updates in the next 15 min), I'm going > to close this ticket. > > - Jim > > -- > Ticket URL: <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/ticket/689#comment:10> > IETF Meeting/NOC <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org> > IETF Meeting - NOC pages ------------------------------------------- Matthew Larson, Asst. IT Director Association Management Solutions Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538 http://www.amsl.com
comment:12 Changed 4 years ago by
Following up on what Jim said, I'm seeing similar results from global endpoints. Since your ping times look about right for someone an ocean away, and since I'm not seeing a huge amount of variance between global endpoints (save for ones in the UK and Europe, which are predictably better), I would say this ticket can be closed if no one objects.
comment:14 Changed 4 years ago by
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | accepted → closed |
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.
Would you mind checking now, please? We observed similar behavior this morning, but it's looking much better.