Verily did John Hawkinson write:

>> Yah ... I get that from Ames, too.  I had heard that MFS Datanet was 
>> "looking into it", but I haven't heard anything since.  Bill?  Any new 
>> status?

> It doesn't look awful much like a MAE-W problem. Since:

>  9  mae-east-plusplus.Washington.mci.net (204.70.74.102)
> 10  Net99-Mae-East01.net99.net (192.41.177.170) 
> 11  sj-0.SanJose.net99.net (204.157.38.2)
> 12  mae-west.best.net (198.32.136.36) 
> 13  netbsd.warped.com

> And:

> [lola-granola!jhawk] ~> ping -c 1 -p 00000000ffffffff 192.41.177.170
> PATTERN: 0x00000000ffffffff
> PING 192.41.177.170 (192.41.177.170): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 192.41.177.170: icmp_seq=0 ttl=246 time=39.079 ms

> but:

> PATTERN: 0x00000000ffffffff
> PING 204.157.38.2 (204.157.38.2): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 204.157.38.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=84.730 ms
> wrong data byte #24 should be 0x0 but was 0xff

> So it would be an internal net99 issue...

Hmm.. while bored one night, I did some traceroutes and pings from my
system, which is one hop (essentially) away from ftp.netbsd.org...

   2  dedicated1.mv.best.net (205.149.163.203)
   3  core-eth-0/3.mf.best.net (205.149.163.1)
-  4  mae-west.net99.net (198.32.136.16)
*  5  mae-west.SanFrancisco.mci.net (198.32.136.12)
   6  borderx2-hssi2-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.158.117)
   7  border4-fddi-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.3.163)

   2  dedicated1.mv.best.net (205.149.163.203)
   3  core-eth-0/3.mf.best.net (205.149.163.1)
   4  mae-west.net99.net (198.32.136.16)
*  5  sl-mae-w-F0/0.sprintlink.net (198.32.136.11)
   6  sl-stk-6-H3/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.45)
   7  sl-stk-5-F0/0.sprintlink.net (144.228.40.5)

   2  dedicated1.mv.best.net (205.149.163.203)
   3  core-eth-0/3.mf.best.net (205.149.163.1)
*  4  T3-CRL-SFO-01-H1/0.US.CRL.NET (198.32.136.10)
   5  T3-CRL-SFO-01-H3/0.US.CRL.NET (149.20.64.19)

   2  dedicated1.mv.best.net (205.149.163.203)
   3  core-eth-0/3.mf.best.net (205.149.163.1)
*  4  fddi.scl-ca-gw3.netcom.net (163.179.206.2)
   5  fddi.scl-ca-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.206.1)
   6  t3-1.netcomgw.netcom.net (163.179.220.193)
(bad pings roughly 50% of the time)

   2  dedicated1.mv.best.net (205.149.163.203)
   3  core-eth-0/3.mf.best.net (205.149.163.1)
   4  mae-west.net99.net (198.32.136.16)
   5  mae-west.agis.net (198.32.136.21)
   6  detroit.agis.net (204.130.243.37)
   7  gw-core-1.coast.net (205.149.128.100)
(no problems at all)

>From .au, the first traceroute above looks like:
   8  border4-hssi1-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.35.5)
   9  borderx2-fddi0-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.3.164)
* 10  fix-west-nap.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.158.118)
- 11  mae-west.net99.net (198.32.136.16)
  12  mae-west.best.net (198.32.136.36)


The `*' is where the problem appears on my side, and the `-' is where I
had a friend in .au do the same and the problem appears for him.

The netcom traceroute did crazy things.  When traceroute'ng specifically
to "fddi.scl-ca-gw3.netcom.net (163.179.206.2)" (hop number 4), the
routing went nuts.

The net99.net -> agis.net link is fine, though.

I cc'd this to the address listed in interNIC as the Technical Contact
for net99.  Maybe they can provide some information.

-- Rob
----------------------------------------
Internet: windsor@pobox.com      Life: Rob@Sunnyvale.California.USA.Earth
"Da Web": http://pobox.com/~windsor/

"Ain't much distance 'tween a pat on the back and a kick in the pants."
    -- David Lee Roth (1990), `The Dogtown Shuffle'