|
Problems reaching some sites?Yesterday I had issues getting to some sites e.g google, blogspot, etc. Traceroutes showed destination unreachable. It cleared later in the evening for google but still can't connect to blogspot (but I could using a proxy site so they are up). Is this a problem just through my elmhurst connection?
C:\>tracert blogspot.com
Tracing route to blogspot.com [209.85.225.191] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.2.1 2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1 3 9 ms 9 ms 10 ms adsl-68-255-3-254.dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net [68.2 55.3.254] 4 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms 68.250.251.65 5 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms bb1-g0-0.emhril.ameritech.net [151.164.43.82] 6 * * * Request timed out. 7 * * * Request timed out. ...deleted duplicates... 19 * * * Request timed out. 20 * * * Request timed out. 21 * 151.164.99.169 reports: Destination host unreachable.
Trace complete. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 10:28 am · (locked) |
Storm72 join:2003-07-03 Bourbonnais, IL |
Storm72
Member
2010-Mar-27 10:52 am
Various Google sites have also been unreachable over the past week with U-verse. I haven't had the same problem with the other ISPs I use. From what I've been able to gather on Twitter, this seems to be an issue afflicting many AT&T customers around the Midwest. Unfortunately, AT&T seems to be silent about what's going on, so I have no idea when this will be resolved. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 10:52 am · (locked) |
|
Lightning8 to conundrum2
Anon
2010-Mar-27 11:20 am
to conundrum2
I've also noticed that problem last night but I usually have to try multiple times to be able to view a website most of the time which seems to be a dns problem. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 11:20 am · (locked) |
2 edits |
Have had trouble reaching here acer.com, google at times, even dslreports off and on, but usually closing browser and trying again seems to get it eventually
using 2wire gateway router on Elite Package
working fine here at the moment though |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 11:29 am · (locked) |
|
to conundrum2
Same problems here in Ohio. Google & youtube have been sluggish, sometimes timing out. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 11:52 am · (locked) |
|
Lightning8 to conundrum2
Anon
2010-Mar-27 11:59 am
to conundrum2
I'm also using a 2Wire 2701 Hg-B but my problem still occurs with multiple browsers and even after I open and close them. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 11:59 am · (locked) |
2 edits |
to insomnia98
I wonder if that's why my PC seems sluggish when using SecondLife, and actually it's related to at&t dns issues, when i'm using second life someitmes i get so sluggish i can barely even walk in that MMO game, one tracert was at 80ms, so it did reach there, but was very laggy
using a 2701HG-B here as well
was really bad before i reset the 2wire 2701HG-B last night, but right now not seeing too many issues, but knows it can happen at any moment,like it has last few days |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 12:01 pm · (locked) |
SparkDawg Premium Member join:2005-01-06 Ypsilanti, MI |
SparkDawg
Premium Member
2010-Mar-27 12:42 pm
Yep, Google sites don't like to work 25% of the time. It does get annoying when they're the sites that usually work 100% of the time.
AT&T needs to beef up their dns servers. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 12:42 pm · (locked) |
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
1 edit |
to conundrum2
Re: Problems reaching some sites?I am having a issue also, U-Verse Portage, Michigan.
Basically there are a few google IP's that are unreachable. the one that i have tracked down is 209.85.225.99, Im unable to ping it from My computer or from my 2Wire Residential Gateway.
when i do a trace route it ends at seems to stop at 151.164.92.246 (Which just so happens to be a AT&T IP)
the real annoying thing about it is this is affecting ALLOT of websites, any site that uses google analytics, google adwords, has google ads on their sites, YouTube, GMail, any other google service is potentially inaccessible.
The problem for getting support is the fact that when your computer looks up DNS for google you are given different IPs at different times (Called Round-Robin DNS and is used to reduce issues such as this) So what doesn't work now, may work in 5 mins, and be broke again in 10.
I sent a email to uversecare@att.com about my issue and All i have received so far is ----- Hi, I do apologize for the inconvenience. I'm investigating the issue and will get back with you with an answer.
Thanks, U-verse -----
these are the IP's that i cannot reach so far, I know theres more just gotta find em.
74.125.91.157 (googleads.g.doubleclick.net) 209.85.225.99 (google.com) 74.125.91.17 (mail.google.com) |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 1:12 pm · (locked) |
jstorm join:2010-03-27 Champaign, IL |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 3:09 pm
I'm noticing similar issues. It appears to be caused by routing issues at AT&T's edge: jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ traceroute google.com traceroute: Warning: google.com has multiple addresses; using 209.85.225.99 traceroute to google.com (209.85.225.99), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) 2.491 ms 1.700 ms 1.826 ms 2 ppp-70-225-175-254.dsl.chmpil.ameritech.net (70.225.175.254) 10.022 ms 15.857 ms 10.938 ms 3 dist2-vlan50.chmpil.ameritech.net (67.36.90.227) 10.123 ms 10.703 ms 12.879 ms 4 bb1-g8-0.chmpil.ameritech.net (67.36.90.115) 9.310 ms 9.443 ms 13.016 ms 5 * * * 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * *^C
Right now, route servers are reporting that network 209.85.224.0/23 is being advertised correctly with no recent flaps. This leads me to believe that ACLs or the edge IGP may be at fault. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 3:09 pm · (locked) |
|
to conundrum2
I just wanted to report from Cleveland that I've also been having intermittent problems with Google and YouTube, and am using AT&T's DSL. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 3:18 pm · (locked) |
jstorm join:2010-03-27 Champaign, IL 1 edit |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 3:19 pm
Actually, scratch that: it seems that traffic bound for IPs 209.85.225.99 through 209.85.225.253 is being specifically dropped at the edge. jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ traceroute 209.85.225.98 traceroute to 209.85.225.98 (209.85.225.98), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) 2.859 ms 1.899 ms 1.991 ms 2 ppp-70-225-175-254.dsl.chmpil.ameritech.net (70.225.175.254) 13.279 ms 13.622 ms 9.849 ms 3 dist2-vlan50.chmpil.ameritech.net (67.36.90.227) 9.582 ms 9.705 ms 10.967 ms 4 bb1-g8-0.chmpil.ameritech.net (67.36.90.115) 10.739 ms 11.360 ms 12.379 ms 5 151.164.99.137 (151.164.99.137) 15.241 ms 17.207 ms 14.743 ms 6 72.14.218.49 (72.14.218.49) 16.147 ms 52.316 ms 16.657 ms 7 209.85.254.130 (209.85.254.130) 16.074 ms 209.85.254.122 (209.85.254.122) 25.484 ms 209.85.254.130 (209.85.254.130) 22.612 ms 8 72.14.232.141 (72.14.232.141) 26.971 ms 209.85.241.22 (209.85.241.22) 25.386 ms 72.137 ms 9 209.85.241.29 (209.85.241.29) 25.214 ms 209.85.241.37 (209.85.241.37) 27.955 ms 26.906 ms 10 66.249.95.138 (66.249.95.138) 32.119 ms 72.14.239.18 (72.14.239.18) 29.240 ms 209.85.248.106 (209.85.248.106) 41.720 ms 11 iy-in-f98.1e100.net (209.85.225.98) 30.741 ms 32.473 ms 27.031 ms
jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ traceroute 209.85.225.254 traceroute to 209.85.225.254 (209.85.225.254), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) 3.758 ms 1.618 ms 1.933 ms 2 ppp-70-225-175-254.dsl.chmpil.ameritech.net (70.225.175.254) 9.846 ms 9.194 ms 9.656 ms 3 dist1-vlan60.chmpil.ameritech.net (67.36.90.242) 9.204 ms 9.143 ms 9.738 ms 4 bb1-g8-0.chmpil.ameritech.net (67.36.90.115) 14.882 ms 8.460 ms 9.859 ms 5 151.164.99.137 (151.164.99.137) 15.893 ms * 54.635 ms 6 72.14.218.49 (72.14.218.49) 15.565 ms 46.766 ms 16.091 ms 7 209.85.254.122 (209.85.254.122) 31.040 ms 122.150 ms 209.85.254.130 (209.85.254.130) 15.588 ms 8 209.85.241.22 (209.85.241.22) 25.354 ms 32.538 ms 25.175 ms 9 209.85.241.37 (209.85.241.37) 25.599 ms 32.514 ms 33.308 ms 10 * * * 11 *^C
|
actions · 2010-Mar-27 3:19 pm · (locked) |
jstorm |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 3:46 pm
Ruling out ACLs: jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ ping 209.85.225.99 PING 209.85.225.99 (209.85.225.99): 56 data bytes 36 bytes from 151.164.99.129: Destination Host Unreachable Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst 4 5 00 5400 0a5e 0 0000 3c 01 7379 192.168.1.66 209.85.225.99
But there are plenty of ways to block traffic through routing policy. Just to reiterate, this is definitely an edge issue and not within the AT&T MPLS network. From the AT&T route server, I see: route-server>ping 209.85.225.99
Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 209.85.225.99, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/34/36 ms
|
actions · 2010-Mar-27 3:46 pm · (locked) |
jstorm |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 4:16 pm
Incidentally, the traceroutes didn't tell the whole story. It turns out that IPs like 209.85.225.100 do ping, but traceroutes to them are hitting edge hops that are configured not to respond to ICMP. That said, I decided to perform an audit of the range I had mistakenly thought was having trouble: jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ for ip in `echo 209.85.225.{99..253}`; do
> ( ping -c 1 $ip | grep from ) &
> sleep 1
> done 2>/dev/null
64 bytes from 209.85.225.100: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=31.485 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.101: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=29.538 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.102: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=25.297 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.104: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=30.194 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.105: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=25.787 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.106: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=26.861 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.112: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=28.363 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.113: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.307 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.115: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=28.591 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.116: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=25.470 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.118: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.639 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.120: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=24.651 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.128: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.461 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.132: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=39.827 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.136: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=24.538 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.137: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=25.460 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.138: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=28.532 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.141: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.665 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.142: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.244 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.144: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=24.348 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.145: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=24.711 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.146: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.271 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.147: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.868 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.148: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=25.835 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.149: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=28.055 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.152: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=25.236 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.154: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.298 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.155: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.830 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.156: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=28.033 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.157: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.677 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.161: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=26.278 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.162: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.665 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.163: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.074 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.164: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=26.470 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.165: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.540 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.166: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=25.708 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.167: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=24.896 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.176: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=29.846 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.184: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=26.834 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.189: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.733 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.190: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=25.197 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.191: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.162 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.193: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=26.922 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.210: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=24.862 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.221: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=26.989 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.222: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=29.978 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.224: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.654 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.225: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.786 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.228: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=29.453 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.230: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=28.120 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.231: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.330 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.233: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.958 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.234: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=26.238 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.236: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.629 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.237: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.521 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.241: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=28.608 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.242: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=26.988 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.244: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=26.248 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.245: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=28.337 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.247: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.341 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.248: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=24.648 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.250: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=27.199 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.251: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=30.525 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.252: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=30.617 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.225.253: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=35.634 ms
Of course, those IPs that don't respond aren't necessarily having issues; they may simply not be in use. So that seems to nail it down to a very few, specific IPs that are getting dropped at the edge, including 209.85.225.99. I'll check the pings that dropped against the ATT route server to see where the discrepancies are. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 4:16 pm · (locked) |
|
Add here gmail webmail not working, or pop mail thru Windows live mail, still says connecting on webmail, then after refresh finally went, gonna try logging in |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 4:25 pm · (locked) |
|
ClevelandRox to conundrum2
Anon
2010-Mar-27 4:39 pm
to conundrum2
If you cannot access a site like Google or GMail directly, is it possible to use a proxy to get to Google? (I'm not sure if I'd trust a middle-man for something like Gmail, however.) |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 4:39 pm · (locked) |
jstorm join:2010-03-27 Champaign, IL |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 4:55 pm
My expect script just finished. The result is that, in the range of IPs from 209.85.225.99-209.85.225.253, IPs that are actually having issues include the following: 209.85.225.99 209.85.225.103 209.85.225.123 209.85.225.139 209.85.225.143 209.85.225.227
This may be nowhere near the number that are actually having problems, but it's a good start. If you're having trouble reaching a Google page, the IP that DNS resolved for you may very well be in that list. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 4:55 pm · (locked) |
jstorm |
to ClevelandRox
Absolutely. You can use something like » www.web4proxy.com/. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 4:59 pm · (locked) |
jstorm |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 5:34 pm
Decided to check the rest in that /24. The list is now: 209.85.225.19 209.85.225.35 209.85.225.51 209.85.225.95 209.85.225.99 209.85.225.103 209.85.225.123 209.85.225.139 209.85.225.143 209.85.225.227
Again, this is probably not everything. The actual routed block is 209.85.224.0/23, and I haven't even checked the first /24. To get a real feel for the potential scope of this issue, these IPs all come from a much larger Google block 209.85.128.0/17. Hence, I've effectively checked only 256 of 32768 IPs for this problem. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 5:34 pm · (locked) |
|
Wow. I left that post expecting it was going to be isolated to me. I guess I'm glad that I'm not the only one, but it's a bit disappointing that it's affecting so many people and there appears to be no acknowledgement or update on the radar.
As one of the posters above indicated, Google is pretty pervasive these days and whether I'm searching, checking e-mail, or trying to get to sites hosted there it's pretty frustrating. I noticed blogspot was in the IP range that poster Jstorm referenced.
As for Web proxies, ones I found worked somewhat, but they wanted me to subscribe to get full web page support. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 5:38 pm · (locked) |
jstorm join:2010-03-27 Champaign, IL |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 5:47 pm
More bad news, I'm afraid. Much more. Google seems to round-robin between this list: google.com. 254 IN A 209.85.225.147 google.com. 254 IN A 209.85.225.106 google.com. 254 IN A 209.85.225.99 google.com. 254 IN A 209.85.225.105 google.com. 254 IN A 209.85.225.103 google.com. 254 IN A 209.85.225.104
And this one: google.com. 252 IN A 74.125.95.147 google.com. 252 IN A 74.125.95.103 google.com. 252 IN A 74.125.95.106 google.com. 252 IN A 74.125.95.105 google.com. 252 IN A 74.125.95.104 google.com. 252 IN A 74.125.95.99
Of the IPs shown, two out of each list exhibit the problem. That is, 209.85.225.99, 209.85.225.103, 74.125.95.103, and 74.125.95.147 will fail to pull up Google if you're experiencing this issue. This expands the potentially affected ranges to both 209.85.128.0/17 and 74.125.0.0/16, bumping up the total number of IPs to 98304. At this point, I don't think there's anything more I can do. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 5:47 pm · (locked) |
|
jstorm |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 6:00 pm
Screw it. I can navigate AT&T's switchboard. I'll make a few phone calls. Wish me luck as I spend the next hour navigating through the ignorance. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 6:00 pm · (locked) |
|
to conundrum2
Just got another response from AT&T about this ---------------------------------------- My name is Preston with U-Verse Tier II Technical Support. First off I do want to thank you for e-mailing the U-Verse Care Social Media Support Team where our goal is to get your issue resolved as soon as possible. I have been looking in to your access gmail problem. I have sent all the information up to another department to look at. Sense we have had several customers with the same problem. I am waiting for a response from them. I will be giving you updates as they come in.
E-mail address uversecare@att.com Thank You, Uversecare
SMST Hours 7:00am to 9:00pm Monday - Saturday |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 6:04 pm · (locked) |
jstorm join:2010-03-27 Champaign, IL 1 edit |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 6:07 pm
Thanks for the reply. I was actually in the process of being transferred to that group when you posted. We eagerly await the result. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 6:07 pm · (locked) |
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to SparkDawg
said by SparkDawg:Yep, Google sites don't like to work 25% of the time. It does get annoying when they're the sites that usually work 100% of the time. AT&T needs to beef up their dns servers. Maybe, maybe not: » www.neowin.net/news/chin ··· -systems |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 6:28 pm · (locked) |
jstorm join:2010-03-27 Champaign, IL |
to oilandgears
Got through the ignorant masses rather quickly. Talking to Tier II now. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 6:38 pm · (locked) |
jstorm |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 6:49 pm
On the escalation path to the backbone group, now. |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 6:49 pm · (locked) |
jstorm |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 6:55 pm
New IP fixed the issue. Can I get everyone to tell me their IP? |
actions · 2010-Mar-27 6:55 pm · (locked) |
jstorm |
jstorm
Member
2010-Mar-27 6:59 pm
Here is the before and after: jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ ping 209.85.225.99 PING 209.85.225.99 (209.85.225.99): 56 data bytes ^C --- 209.85.225.99 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ Documents/scripts/convenience/get_inetip.sh 70.225.167.1 jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ Documents/scripts/convenience/get_inetip.sh ^C jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ Documents/scripts/convenience/get_inetip.sh 70.225.173.75
jstorm[0]@absinthe:~$ ping 209.85.225.99 PING 209.85.225.99 (209.85.225.99): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 209.85.225.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=28.520 ms 64 bytes from 209.85.225.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=27.476 ms ^C --- 209.85.225.99 ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 27.476/27.998/28.520/0.522 ms
|
actions · 2010-Mar-27 6:59 pm · (locked) |