As per subject.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

????
Just done some 'usual' housekeeping on eBay - all as usual...

Jim K

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:03:01 PM UTC+1, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
As per subject.

Yes.

http://downdetector.co.uk/problems/ebay

My life is empty today being unable to watch other people buying tat.

Owain

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:45:43 PM UTC+1, I wrote:
Yes.

According to Twitter "all sites working normally". Not here it isn't
https://twitter.com/eBay_UK

Owain

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:50:20 PM UTC+1, I wrote:
According to Twitter "all sites working normally". Not here it isn't
https://twitter.com/eBay_UK

Back up now.

Like a sailor's wotsit up a whore's thingmy.

Owain

wrote:

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

As per subject.

Yes.

Was down for me too, OK now but

http://isup.me/ebay.co.uk

didn't see a problem.

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:45:43 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:03:01 PM UTC+1, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

As per subject.



Yes.



http://downdetector.co.uk/problems/ebay



My life is empty today being unable to watch other people buying tat.



Owain


And abebooks.co.uk at the same time...

En el artículo , Harry
Bloomfield escribió:

As per subject.

Think it was more widespread than that. I couldn't get to several of my
usual sites, including Dilbert. Traceroutes petered out somewhere on
Level3.net in Texas.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Harry
Bloomfield escribió:

As per subject.

Think it was more widespread than that. I couldn't get to several of my
usual sites, including Dilbert. Traceroutes petered out somewhere on
Level3.net in Texas.

According to an E-Mail I got from TsoHost's boss it was due to a
breakdown of DNS on major routers in data centres. This DNS failure
was caused by an arbitrary (but until now) sufficient limit on the
number of DNS entries they could cache. Just in the last day or two
the total number of DNS names on the internet hit this number.

..... at least that's my understanding.



--
Chris Green
·

In message , at 18:52:58 on Tue, 12 Aug
2014, remarked:
Think it was more widespread than that. I couldn't get to several of my
usual sites, including Dilbert. Traceroutes petered out somewhere on
Level3.net in Texas.

According to an E-Mail I got from TsoHost's boss it was due to a
breakdown of DNS on major routers in data centres. This DNS failure
was caused by an arbitrary (but until now) sufficient limit on the
number of DNS entries they could cache. Just in the last day or two
the total number of DNS names on the internet hit this number.

.... at least that's my understanding.

Not DNS at all, but BGP routing tables hitting 512k entries:

http://www.zdnet.com/internet-hiccup...one-heres-why-
7000032566/

This isn't a new problem, I remember having to throw away some routers
when their memory had already been upgraded to its design limit (which
was probably 64k routes) in the late 90's; and there was discussion of
mitigation techniques in 2007 when the tables hit 256k routes.

Apparently some people have tweaked their routers recently to 768k (the
next obvious step up).

ps It really is 512,000 as reported by ZD-Net, and not 512*1024.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:52:58 on Tue, 12 Aug
2014, remarked:
Think it was more widespread than that. I couldn't get to several of my
usual sites, including Dilbert. Traceroutes petered out somewhere on
Level3.net in Texas.

According to an E-Mail I got from TsoHost's boss it was due to a
breakdown of DNS on major routers in data centres. This DNS failure
was caused by an arbitrary (but until now) sufficient limit on the
number of DNS entries they could cache. Just in the last day or two
the total number of DNS names on the internet hit this number.

.... at least that's my understanding.

Not DNS at all, but BGP routing tables hitting 512k entries:

Ah, yes, I did think that DNS didn't sound right somehow. Thanks for
the correction and clarification. I was just [mis]remembering what
the TsoHost E-Mail had said.


http://www.zdnet.com/internet-hiccup...one-heres-why-
7000032566/

This isn't a new problem, I remember having to throw away some routers
when their memory had already been upgraded to its design limit (which
was probably 64k routes) in the late 90's; and there was discussion of
mitigation techniques in 2007 when the tables hit 256k routes.

Apparently some people have tweaked their routers recently to 768k (the
next obvious step up).

ps It really is 512,000 as reported by ZD-Net, and not 512*1024.
--
Roland Perry

--
Chris Green
·

In article , Roland Perry
writes

Not DNS at all, but BGP routing tables hitting 512k entries:

http://www.zdnet.com/internet-hiccup...one-heres-why-
7000032566/

Interesting, thanks for posting the link. Interesting that el Reg and
the Inq haven't picked up on the story. The only relevant story seems
to be Ebay having gone down.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

In article , Mike Tomlinson
writes

Interesting that el Reg and
the Inq haven't picked up on the story.

They have now:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08...s_out_to_play/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

In article , scribeth thus
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Harry
Bloomfield escribió:

As per subject.

Think it was more widespread than that. I couldn't get to several of my
usual sites, including Dilbert. Traceroutes petered out somewhere on
Level3.net in Texas.

According to an E-Mail I got from TsoHost's boss it was due to a
breakdown of DNS on major routers in data centres. This DNS failure
was caused by an arbitrary (but until now) sufficient limit on the
number of DNS entries they could cache. Just in the last day or two
the total number of DNS names on the internet hit this number.

.... at least that's my understanding.




The BBC news website was doing odd things like running an article on
Jimmy Saville's death;!..

Now seems fine like ebay...
--
Tony Sayer