Re: 20000830: Network Problems with LDM at St. Louis University

Chuck,

Yes, the traceroute looks very poor and your connection to yin is probably
the cause for most of your reclass statements. It truly would be in your
best interest to participate in the I2/Abilene project and access the OC48
lines.

I am going to suggest a traceroute to Indiana..

cica.cica.indiana.edu

They have I2 connectivity as does Mich. but it may route differently, so
may be a better feed.

Please attach the results of the traceroute in your reply.

Thank you


 -Jeff
____________________________                  _____________________
Jeff Weber                                    address@hidden
Unidata Support                               PH:303-497-8676 
NWS-COMET Case Study Library                  FX:303-497-8690
University Corp for Atmospheric Research      3300 Mitchell Ln
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/jweber      Boulder,Co 80307-3000
________________________________________      ______________________

On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Unidata Support wrote:

> 
> ------- Forwarded Message
> 
> >To: address@hidden
> >From: "Dr. Charles Graves" <address@hidden>
> >Subject: Network Problems with LDM
> >Organization: St. Louis University
> >Keywords: 200008302008.e7UK8gN27945 IDD
> 
> 
> Here at Saint Louis University, we are currently being feed from 
> yin.engin.umich.edu (to inflow.eas.slu.edu) and the latencies
> while have recently gotten worse.  The problem appears
> not to be with yin.engin.umich.edu, they seem to get the data in a 
> timely fashion.  It is getting from there to SLU. Since 5 AM this morning 
> we have gotten 137 RECLASS messages...ala
> 
> Aug 30 15:37:49 inflow.eas.slu.edu yin[17480]: RECLASS: 20000830143749.186 
> TS_ENDT {{UNIDATA,  ".*"}}
> Aug 30 15:37:49 inflow.eas.slu.edu yin[17480]: skipped: 20000830143615.646 
> (93.539 seconds)
> 
> A quick look at comparing products and latencies shows that more often than 
> not
> we don't get all the products.
> 
> The netcheck log during slow hours (for yin.engin.umich.edu) typically
> looks like:
> 
> Aug 30 17:06:31 UTC: yin.engin.umich.edu
> ________________________
> 
> ping -s yin.engin.umich.edu 64 10:
> ----yin.engin.umich.edu PING Statistics----
> 10 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 10% packet loss
> round-trip (ms)  min/avg/max = 967/1011/1077
> 
> 
> traceroute yin.engin.umich.edu:
> traceroute to yin.engin.umich.edu (141.213.23.50), 30 hops max, 40 byte 
> packets
>  1  dp-fr-4500.slu.edu (165.134.1.241)  2.043 ms  1.611 ms  1.526 ms
>  2  cisco.slu.edu (165.134.1.254)  1.686 ms  1.814 ms  2.535 ms
>  3  primary-slu2-t1.primary.net (208.19.227.250)  235.163 ms  224.396 ms 
> 171.037 ms
>  4  stl-core-01.primary.net (216.87.63.10)  946.066 ms  904.368 ms 907.575 ms
>  5  qwest-primary-1.inet.qwest.net (208.46.63.205)  761.332 ms  926.665 ms  
> 834.050 ms
>  6  chi-core-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.20.81)  925.822 ms  954.701 ms 
> 964.870 ms
>  7  kcm-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.5.211)  872.529 ms  875.460 ms 
> 938.169 ms
>  8  kcm-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.29.69)  855.760 ms  824.620 ms 
> 879.758 ms
>  9  dal-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.5.203)  895.407 ms  826.520 ms 
> 903.265 ms
> 10  dal-brdr-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.25.46)  897.631 ms  905.840 ms 
> 894.859 ms
> 11  205.171.4.18 (205.171.4.18)  906.257 ms  926.953 ms  895.709 ms
> 12  corerouter1.Dallas.cw.net (204.70.9.149)  828.049 ms *  980.670 ms
> 13  corerouter1.WillowSprings.cw.net (204.70.9.135)  965.649 ms 1002.591 ms  
> 1026.150 ms
> 14  bordercore2.WillowSprings.cw.net (166.48.22.1)  970.694 ms  975.877 ms  
> 989.016 ms
> 15  merit-network.WillowSprings.cw.net (166.48.23.254)  995.295 ms 862.217 ms 
>  956.194 ms
> 16  atm1-0x2.michnet8.mich.net (198.108.22.122)  1007.354 ms * *
> 17  192.122.183.14 (192.122.183.14)  696.114 ms *  1056.349 ms
> 18  * 141.213.101.4 (141.213.101.4)  846.448 ms  924.427 ms
> 19  yin.engin.umich.edu (141.213.23.50)  1010.340 ms  1019.837 ms 973.241 ms
> 
> Do you have any suggestions?  I have also communicated with our network 
> people and am currently
> getting no where.  I have suggested Internet II/Abilene to them, but I'm not 
> savy enough
> to really make a case for it.
> 
> Sorry to complain....its just been a bad summer:-(
> 
> Thanks
> Chuck
> 
> 
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
> 
>