#862 closed request (fixed)
IPv6 routing issues from ietf-hotel
Reported by: | Owned by: | Clemens Schrimpe | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | ietf-091 |
Component: | incoming | Keywords: | |
Cc: | My Current Location: | ||
My MAC Address: | My OS: |
Description
Hi, there seem to be some intermittent IPv6 routing issues, at least from the ietf-hotel network; v4 seems fine: [lars@dhcp-89f5:/Users/lars] $ ping6 eggert.org PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:67c:370:136:4c92:a8b8:9b0e:2303 --> 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=0 hlim=239 time=242.752 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=1 hlim=239 time=235.921 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=2 hlim=239 time=231.295 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=3 hlim=239 time=237.018 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=4 hlim=239 time=231.539 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=5 hlim=239 time=246.774 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=6 hlim=239 time=232.966 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=7 hlim=239 time=230.949 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=8 hlim=239 time=230.532 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=9 hlim=239 time=238.935 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=10 hlim=239 time=230.351 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=11 hlim=239 time=1004.302 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=12 hlim=239 time=1003.870 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=13 hlim=239 time=235.288 ms ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote eggert.org 16 chars, ret=-1 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=26 hlim=239 time=240.903 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=27 hlim=239 time=233.495 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=28 hlim=239 time=233.678 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=29 hlim=239 time=232.859 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=30 hlim=239 time=229.608 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=31 hlim=239 time=230.025 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=32 hlim=239 time=230.057 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=33 hlim=239 time=237.716 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=34 hlim=239 time=230.032 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=35 hlim=239 time=233.586 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=36 hlim=239 time=229.888 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=37 hlim=239 time=229.667 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=38 hlim=239 time=230.851 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=39 hlim=239 time=233.029 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=40 hlim=239 time=233.065 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=41 hlim=239 time=328.014 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=42 hlim=239 time=238.850 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=43 hlim=239 time=231.663 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=45 hlim=239 time=235.334 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=46 hlim=239 time=229.403 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=47 hlim=239 time=1005.209 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=48 hlim=239 time=635.769 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=49 hlim=239 time=1004.493 ms 16 bytes from 2001:a60:1595:7d01:211:32ff:fe22:186f, icmp_seq=50 hlim=239 time=234.862 ms ^C --- eggert.org ping6 statistics --- 52 packets transmitted, 38 packets received, 26.9% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 229.403/328.014/1005.209/241.128 ms Lars
Change history (9)
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by
Owner: | changed from llynch@… to nkukich@… |
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by
Owner: | changed from nkukich@… to cdoyle@… |
---|---|
Priority: | tbd → minor |
Status: | assigned → accepted |
comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by
Lars,
It looks like packets routing through upstream 2605:e00::/32 routers are experiencing about 8-15% packet loss. I'm chasing it down now.
comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by
Lars,
You may be seeing either of two issues we're tracking. First, we have a known issue with the ietf-hotel ssid that incoming scans are causing lots of ARP traffic, which is kicking off storm control on the hotel's Access Points. The second is a particular link within TWC that's experiencing 15+% v6 loss. We're working with TWC on the loss issue, and are trying to get creative on how to reduce the ARP load on the ietf-hotel net. If you were to plug into the wired connection in your room, it would eliminate the ietf-hotel issue.
Sorry for the annoyance! We'll update the ticket as we learn more...
- Jim
comment:5 follow-up: 6 Changed 6 years ago by
Lars,
Could you test again? We've substantially improved the ARP issue (and hence, the multicast/broadcast issue) on the ietf-hotel net. We also believe we've resolved the ipv6 loss issue within TWC.
Many thanks!
- Jim
comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to jim@…:
Lars,
Could you test again? We've substantially improved the ARP issue (and hence, the multicast/broadcast issue) on the ietf-hotel net. We also believe we've resolved the ipv6 loss issue within TWC.
Many thanks!
- Jim
Turns out that the ticketing system is handling replies different now then it was before. So sorry for the radio silence. Please click the link to check the ticket directly to see the current notes.
comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by
Owner: | changed from cdoyle@… to Clemens Schrimpe |
---|
This should be resolved now. Please retest.
comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | accepted → closed |
Lars,
We strongly believe this is resolved, so I'm going to resolve the ticket. If you find that not to be the case, please let us know and we'll be happy to work to address anything outstanding.
- JIm
I'm looking into this now. It looks like we have a packet-loss issue 3-hops outside of our network in the TWC AS. I will update the ticket as I gather more information.
C