On 4/Mar/19 03:17, Harald Koch wrote:
>
> (Can I join the choir too? :)
But of course :-)...
Mark.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, at 22:05, Mark Andrews wrote:
> admins who don’t know how IP is supposed to work.
You do realise that in "corporate world" that's more than 80% of network admins
? Some of them even make it to "audit" companies, so they can screw a company
with clueful admins with their
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, at 17:35, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> Yes, some admins don't have fine-enough grain tools to block or throttle
> specific types of ICMP, but that's the fault of the vendors, not the admins.
We call these tunable parameters "nerd knobs".
I used to create those knobs for
> On 4 Mar 2019, at 9:33 am, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 3/3/19 1:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> There are lots of IDIOTS out there that BLOCK ALL ICMP. That blocks PTB
>> getting
>> back to the TCP servers.
>
> For those of us who are in the dark, "PTB" appears to refer to "Packet
> Too
On 3/3/19 1:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> There are lots of IDIOTS out there that BLOCK ALL ICMP. That blocks PTB
> getting
> back to the TCP servers.
For those of us who are in the dark, "PTB" appears to refer to "Packet
Too Big" responses in ICMPv6.
Yes, some admins don't have fine-enough
On 3/Mar/19 23:04, Mark Andrews wrote:
> There are lots of IDIOTS out there that BLOCK ALL ICMP. That blocks PTB
> getting
> back to the TCP servers. There are also IDIOTS that deploy load balancers
> that
> DO NOT LOOK INSIDE ICMP messages for redirecting ICMP messages to the correct
>
There are lots of IDIOTS out there that BLOCK ALL ICMP. That blocks PTB getting
back to the TCP servers. There are also IDIOTS that deploy load balancers that
DO NOT LOOK INSIDE ICMP messages for redirecting ICMP messages to the correct
back end. There are also IDOITS that rate limit PTB
On 3/Mar/19 21:57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> The transport (tunnel) CAN support that kind of fragmentation.
>
> (e.g. the tunnel could chop up a 1280 byte packet into two packets and the
> remote then join them together; that is a "ethernet" level thing).
If you have a working example between a
On 3/Mar/19 18:05, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> IPv6 requires a minimum MTU of 1280.
>
> If you cannot transport it, then the transport (the tunnel in this case)
> needs to handle the fragmentation of packets of 1280 down to whatever does
> fit in the tunnel.
As you know, IPv6 does not support
Hi all.
Just an update on this... it did turn out to be an MTU issue which I've
been working on since last year, November. The trick was finding the
right combination of settings between my Mikrotik home router and one of
our Cisco ASR1006 edge routers in my backbone that terminates the 6-in-4
10 matches
Mail list logo
