I hate it when I can't get in touch with the right engineers at a large company. This (especially the highly targeted ad mentioned on the page) is a very creative way to try to solve that problem.
Not associated with Meta, but this piqued my interest. That being said, I found some parts confusing and hard to follow. For example what does URPF (Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding) in the title of this submission have to do with the contents?
And is the packet loss supposedly happening at specific times only? It's not mentioned anywhere, but one screenshot highlights the time. I couldn't reproduce the packet loss using any of the looking glasses and dest IP addresses in the screenshots. At this point, if this was a report I had received about one of my services, I would have probably bumped down the priority to low and asked for a reproducible test, because in my experience even issues that affect a single path in an ECMP group are not this hard to reproduce. I think it's way more important to give the engineer who will process the report an easy way to check that there is indeed a problem than to start to teach how traceroute works.
TBF, there does seem to be an issue somewhere, because sticking 129.134.80.234, one of the Meta IP addresses from a screenshot, on ping.pe does definitely show significant packet loss from more locations than you'd expect to see for an address with no connectivity issues.
I hate it when I can't get in touch with the right engineers at a large company. This (especially the highly targeted ad mentioned on the page) is a very creative way to try to solve that problem.
Not associated with Meta, but this piqued my interest. That being said, I found some parts confusing and hard to follow. For example what does URPF (Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding) in the title of this submission have to do with the contents?
And is the packet loss supposedly happening at specific times only? It's not mentioned anywhere, but one screenshot highlights the time. I couldn't reproduce the packet loss using any of the looking glasses and dest IP addresses in the screenshots. At this point, if this was a report I had received about one of my services, I would have probably bumped down the priority to low and asked for a reproducible test, because in my experience even issues that affect a single path in an ECMP group are not this hard to reproduce. I think it's way more important to give the engineer who will process the report an easy way to check that there is indeed a problem than to start to teach how traceroute works.
TBF, there does seem to be an issue somewhere, because sticking 129.134.80.234, one of the Meta IP addresses from a screenshot, on ping.pe does definitely show significant packet loss from more locations than you'd expect to see for an address with no connectivity issues.
Does this mean meta has a bad interface/optics in their internal network?
Interesting problem, perhaps you could replicate results using RIPE Atlas to see geographical impact as well?