Skip to main content
Beantwoord

Intermitent connectivity problems with google services

  • September 26, 2026
  • 11 reacties
  • 75 keer bekeken

​Hi all,
 
For the last few months I have been trying to track down the cause of intermittent connectivity issues with various google services.
 
It has been a major pain because by the time I notice, the time it takes for me to get annoyed and the time I try to investigate, the problem would disappear.
 
I finally tracked it down to connectivity issues with individual IP addresses in the address list returned by DNS. For example:
dig www.google.com
...
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.google.com. 706 IN A 142.251.150.119
www.google.com. 706 IN A 142.251.155.119
www.google.com. 706 IN A 142.251.156.119
www.google.com. 706 IN A 142.251.157.119
www.google.com. 706 IN A 142.251.153.119
www.google.com. 706 IN A 142.251.154.119
www.google.com. 706 IN A 142.251.151.119
www.google.com. 706 IN A 142.251.152.119
They use the same pattern for other services, like www.youtube.com is on 142.251.15x.4
 
When the problem occurs, the affected IP address is not reachable at all. No ping replies, no traceroute, no HTTP connection, nothing. So the browser, which tries to maintain sessions etc, sticks to the unreachable IP until either the TTL runs out or the service returns.
 
I set up a monitoring service to see how often it happens. The service is accessible at gatus.area128.com. If you click on individual IP addresses and scroll down, you can see a list of outages, always lasting around 15 minutes.
 
My gateway is 195.190.228.57 and IPv6 is not enabled in my network.
 
This is primarily a starting point for 2nd line, who I hope I’ll get to talk to soon but if anyone else is having similar issues and would like to run their copy of gatus, I can share the config.
 
Regards,
 
Antonios
​

Beste antwoord door Antant

I figured it out! The problem was indeed on my side of the path, on my part of the network.

In short, it was my firewall configuration.

A while ago I had set some dynamic blacklist rules which seemed to work fine. Knowing what I know now, I guess my blacklist was never perfect but in a predominantly TCP oriented world, it worked well enough not to attract attention.

The rules were simple:

  • Packet received on a closed port without an established connection? IP goes in the blacklist for 15 minutes.
  • All incoming traffic from IPs in the blacklist is dropped.

This works great with TCP where establishing and tearing down a connection is part of the protocol. With UDP and other stateless protocols, firewalls have been playing a guessing game. Mine considers a UDP connection open, for 10 seconds after the last packet is seen.

So what has changed since I set up the blacklist? Not a clue but in my firewall logs I noticed a few entries like this:

2026-09-30T21:01:10+00:00 mikrotik WAN-to-Firewall: in:pppoe-wan-k out:(unknown 0), src-mac 60:7e:cd:95:8e:fb, proto UDP, 142.251.157.119:443->77.168.xxx.yyy:54687, prio 1->0, len 101

This is most likely a normal response from google, which just happened to arrive late and the connection was already considered closed. My simplistic firewall rules saw it as an attack and blacklisted this google IP for 15 minutes.

Thanks for all the help ​@rvk01. I now need to go look for a smarter blacklist implementation.

Who would have thought? My own firewall blocking a website that I tried to access because it was too slow to respond… 

Bekijk origineel

11 reacties

Arjan van KPN
Moderator
Forum|alt.badge.img+14

Hello ​@Antant! Welcome to the KPN Community! 

It's unfortunate that you're experiencing issues reaching certain Google services. I'll be honest and say that my knowledge in this specific area is somewhat limited, but I'd be happy to think along with you to figure out what's causing this and how we can resolve it.

Could you also tell us a bit more about your home network setup? Are you using your own modem/router, and have you made any changes to the DNS servers you're using?

It's already great that you've done so much investigation yourself, and I think knowledgeable community members such as ​@TDN or ​@bnh may already be able to draw some preliminary conclusions from the information you've provided. However, having a bit more insight into your setup may help us narrow down where the issue could be originating.

Hopefully you'll be able to share some additional information with us. 🙂


  • Auteur
  • Deelnemer
  • September 30, 2026

Hi Arjan,

Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, I’m using my own router but the setup has been stable for nearly a decade now. 

I made changes to the DNS servers while trying to troubleshoot this issue. I was originally using the KPN servers (195.121.1.34 & 195.121.1.66) when the problems started. I’ve since tried google (8.8.8.8), quad9 (9.9.9.9) as well as my own unbound.

DNS was also my forst suspicion but I gave up blaming it when I realised that a) all of them return the same IP addresses and b) my monitoring tool shows errors even when it tries to reach the IP addresses directly, bypassing the DNS.

I have to say I’m really perplexed. The very suspiciously consistent outage durations of just around 15 minutes, tells me that it’s probably the side effect of some process.  

It’s hard to believe that it’s my end of the network when I can reach the other 7 of the 8 IP addresses when it happens. 

Also hard to believe that it’s some CI/CD process on the google side. Those don’t usually stop servers from responding to pings and outages like that usually make the news when they happen once, let alone this often.

Hard to believe that it’s the KPN connection to google. That would make the Dutch news just as fast.

This by the way, is what it looks like as I type.

 

So far, no other external testing tools have shown the outage and I have not seen anyone else reporting issues between KPN and google. I’d be willing to accept that I’m going mad but that does not explain the red bars either. :D

If I had the keys, the next thing I would check is what does my gateway (195.190.228.57) see at the time.

I look forward to any other ideas I can try.

 

Regards,

Antonios


rvk01
Slimmerik
  • October 1, 2026

I wonder if these are not normal outages from Google.

Normally I have uptime kuma and smokeping running here, and I don't see such outages (but they check on hostname, not directly on IP). Do you have a download for your config.yaml? I can run gatus (in docker) for a few days besides the other ones to see if I get the same.


  • Auteur
  • Deelnemer
  • October 1, 2026

thanks for thinking along ​@rvk01. Outages on the google side would definitely be a candidate. Scheduled service rollouts too. Network failovers anywhere along the path, they all fit the pattern. The possibilities are endless...

My understanding of the process is: User goes to www.goole.com → browser asks DNS for an IP → DNS gives back all 8 → browser picks one at random → during the 15 minute outage, there is 1 in 8 chance that the browser will pick the IP that it can’t reach and time out.

I put the config in a gist along with a sample compose file. The last entries in each group are indeed by hostname and they also show the problem, 1/8th of it.


rvk01
Slimmerik
  • October 1, 2026

Ok. Running.

The reason I was thinking about outages is because the direct IP scans show about 15 minutes of downtime while the host scans only show 1 minute down. Which makes me believe the DNS only shows IP’s that are up (or at least host picks the one that is up). And the TTL for Google service is 5 minutes.

 


  • Auteur
  • Deelnemer
  • October 1, 2026

thanks! look forward to hearing what you see on your end.

My guess is that the host scans show 1 minute because all scans are configured to run every minute so that would be the time between runs, and then pick another IP for the next run. 

I really hope that the issue does not show on your end. It would narrow down the scope to within KPN (including my network), behind the point where our connections converge on the way to google, on my side of the path.


rvk01
Slimmerik
  • October 2, 2026

I see your 142.251.152.119 endpoint had some troubles today. For me they didn't. The only hickup was yesterday when 142.251.150.119 had a spike but that was just for 50s. Your points show multiple outages of 14 minutes. 

~ $ traceroute 142.251.152.119
traceroute to 142.251.152.119 (142.251.152.119), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 mijnmodem.kpn (192.168.2.1) 0.644 ms 0.692 ms 0.754 ms
2 static.kpn.net (195.190.228.11) 4.203 ms 4.273 ms 4.347 ms
3 * * *
4 * * *
5 142.251.152.119 (142.251.152.119) 5.980 ms 6.246 ms 6.227 ms

 


  • Auteur
  • Deelnemer
  • Antwoord
  • October 3, 2026

I figured it out! The problem was indeed on my side of the path, on my part of the network.

In short, it was my firewall configuration.

A while ago I had set some dynamic blacklist rules which seemed to work fine. Knowing what I know now, I guess my blacklist was never perfect but in a predominantly TCP oriented world, it worked well enough not to attract attention.

The rules were simple:

  • Packet received on a closed port without an established connection? IP goes in the blacklist for 15 minutes.
  • All incoming traffic from IPs in the blacklist is dropped.

This works great with TCP where establishing and tearing down a connection is part of the protocol. With UDP and other stateless protocols, firewalls have been playing a guessing game. Mine considers a UDP connection open, for 10 seconds after the last packet is seen.

So what has changed since I set up the blacklist? Not a clue but in my firewall logs I noticed a few entries like this:

2026-09-30T21:01:10+00:00 mikrotik WAN-to-Firewall: in:pppoe-wan-k out:(unknown 0), src-mac 60:7e:cd:95:8e:fb, proto UDP, 142.251.157.119:443->77.168.xxx.yyy:54687, prio 1->0, len 101

This is most likely a normal response from google, which just happened to arrive late and the connection was already considered closed. My simplistic firewall rules saw it as an attack and blacklisted this google IP for 15 minutes.

Thanks for all the help ​@rvk01. I now need to go look for a smarter blacklist implementation.

Who would have thought? My own firewall blocking a website that I tried to access because it was too slow to respond… 


rvk01
Slimmerik
  • October 3, 2026

A while ago I had set some dynamic blacklist rules which seemed to work fine. Knowing what I know now, I guess my blacklist was never perfect but in a predominantly TCP oriented world, it worked well enough not to attract attention.

Haha, yeah, I’ve fallen in such a trap too in the past. For me I have nftables setup with a monitor to check HTTP, SSH and other traffic. If something is fishy, that IP goes in the blocklist for 2 to 7 days (depending on the severity). I also had it happen to me that an IP got on that list by mistake. Always takes me a while to think about it, why doesn’t it work….

In your case, a simple single request which is dropped or delayed by Google (which can happen once in a while) will result in a complete shutdown of that IP for 15 min. Maybe building in a number of (re)tries would help there 😁

Glad you figured out where the problem lies 😀

 


  • Auteur
  • Deelnemer
  • October 3, 2026

yes, I’m trying 2 things now.

Multiple “stages” of blacklist. If in stage1, add to stage2, if in stage2 add to stage3 etc and eventually block stageX.

A Whitelist, or more accurately, a blacklist bypass list. Also dynamically generated by ip addresses requested from the LAN side that are in the blacklist.

The 2 can live together but if I had to pick, I think I prefer the 2nd option. It feels a bit like a fix to a problem I create in the first place but that actually applies to my whole network so it doesn’t count :D

The multiple stages only mitigate the problem. I could set up 8 stages and 8 rogue packets could still break google. The bypass should in theory eliminate the problem and therefore make the multiple stages obsolete. That means fewer/simpler rules and a potential attacker blacklisted from the 1st packet…

The logs and the monitoring page over the next few days will give me an idea which way to go. My better half will most likely cast the deciding vote :D 


Arjan van KPN
Moderator
Forum|alt.badge.img+14

It's great that you and ​@rvk01 were able to identify the root cause together! Thanks a lot for your help rvk01!

The silver lining is that you've learned something about firewalls and the Google blocks that can sometimes occur. So in the end, all that troubleshooting did pay off.