On 31/08/2013 13:09, Randy Bush wrote:
i wonder if this is correlated with the high number of probes being
behind nats.
Maybe this provides a bit of insight:
From a test last week from all RIPE Atlas probes to a single known
good MTU 1500 host I compared probes where I had both a ping test
this needs publication on your adventure game of a web site, please. it
will seriously 'inform' some discussion going back and forth on ietf
lists.
This is now published on RIPE Labs. For the adventurous:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-packet-size-matters
some hours
I know I'm digging up an old thread here but I've spent some time
analyzing some of the significant changes that Apple has made to the
Facetime protocol, apparently with a huge focus on IP packet size to
avoid fragmentation issues:
On 31/08/2013 13:13, Randy Bush wrote:
could you please test with ipv6?
This is what I see for various IPv6 payloads (large ICMPv6 echo
requests) from all RIPE Atlas probes that where available at the time to
a single known good MTU 1500 destination:
plenfail% nr_probes
100 9.64
On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:34 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If I send a packet out as a legitimate series of fragments, what is the chance
that they will get dropped somewhere in the middle of the path between the
emitting host and the receiving host?
To my thinking, the answer to
On Sep 1, 2013, at 23:11 , Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:34 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If I send a packet out as a legitimate series of fragments, what is the
chance
that they will get dropped somewhere in the middle of the path between the
On 30/08/2013 16:36, Benno Overeinder wrote:
On 08/30/2013 01:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
In a study using the RIPE Atlas probes, we have used a heuristic to
figure out where the fragments where dropped. And from the Atlas
probes where IP fragments did not arrive, there is a high likelihood
the
could you please test with ipv6?
thanks!
randy
i wonder if this is correlated with the high number of probes being
behind nats.
Maybe this provides a bit of insight:
From a test last week from all RIPE Atlas probes to a single known
good MTU 1500 host I compared probes where I had both a ping test with
ipv4.len 1020 and ipv4.len 1502.
Mark Andrews wrote:
Ensure that the firealls at both ends pass ICMP/ICMPv6 PTB. Only
idiots block all ICMP/ICMPv6. Yes there are a lot of idiots in the
world.
The worst idiots are people who designed ICMPv6 [RFC2463] as:
(e.2) a packet destined to an IPv6 multicast address (there
In a study using the RIPE Atlas probes, we have used a heuristic to
figure out where the fragments where dropped. And from the Atlas
probes where IP fragments did not arrive, there is a high likelihood
the problem is with the last hop to the Atlas probe.
i wonder if this is correlated with
On 08/30/2013 01:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
In a study using the RIPE Atlas probes, we have used a heuristic to
figure out where the fragments where dropped. And from the Atlas
probes where IP fragments did not arrive, there is a high likelihood
the problem is with the last hop to the Atlas
On 8/27/13 4:04 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I'm pretty sure the failure rate is higher, and here's why.
The #1 cause of fragments being dropped is firewalls. Too many
admins configuring a firewall do not understand fragments or how to
properly put them in the rules.
Where do firewalls exist?
On 29/08/2013 04:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
Has the path MTU been measured for all vantage point pairs?
I didn't, but see
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/publications/pmtu-black-holes-msc-thesis.pdf
Fig 23 (page 24) for path MTU data from roughly a year ago (thanks
Benno for posting that link).
, really quite helpful.
-Original Message-
From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Christopher Palmer
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: IP Fragmentation - Not reliable over the Internet
Message-
From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of William
Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Christopher Palmer
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: IP Fragmentation - Not reliable over the Internet?
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 8:01 PM
On Aug 29, 2013, at 18:15 , Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
a708ea6a03eb4ca7a14f5b16e4ce8...@bn1pr03mb171.namprd03.prod.outlook
.com, Christopher Palmer writes:
This is what I'm concerned about:
1. If I originate IP packet fragments, such as an 8000 byte NFS packet
* Owen DeLong
On Aug 27, 2013, at 07:33 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Saku Ytti and Emile Aben have numbers that say otherwise. And there must
be a significantly bigger percentage of failures than pretty close to 0,
or Path MTU Discovery wouldn't have a reputation of being next to
On 28/08/2013 08:05, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Owen DeLong
On Aug 27, 2013, at 07:33 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Saku Ytti and Emile Aben have numbers that say otherwise. And there must
be a significantly bigger percentage of failures than pretty close to 0,
or Path MTU Discovery
Has the path MTU been measured for all vantage point pairs?
Is it known to be 1500 or just the end-point MTUs?
That could affect your results very differently.
Owen
On Aug 28, 2013, at 02:26 , Emile Aben emile.a...@ripe.net wrote:
On 28/08/2013 08:05, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Owen DeLong
On (2013-08-27 00:01 +), Christopher Palmer wrote:
If anyone has any data or anecdotes, please feel free to send an off-list
email or whatever.
[y...@ytti.fi ~]% ssh ring ring-all -t90 ping -s 1473 -c2 -w3 ip.fi|pastebinit
http://p.ip.fi/KA7N
[ytti@sci ~]% curl -s
On Aug 26, 2013, at 22:02 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:01:45 -, Christopher Palmer said:
What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts will
traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented IPv4
packets?
THe fact
On 27/08/2013 08:55, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2013-08-27 00:01 +), Christopher Palmer wrote:
If anyone has any data or anecdotes, please feel free to send an off-list
email or whatever.
[y...@ytti.fi ~]% ssh ring ring-all -t90 ping -s 1473 -c2 -w3 ip.fi|pastebinit
http://p.ip.fi/KA7N
Christopher Palmer christopher.pal...@microsoft.com wrote:
What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts
will traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented
IPv4 packets?
This question is important for large EDNS packets so you'll find some
recent
Christopher Palmer christopher.pal...@microsoft.com wrote:
What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts
will traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented
IPv4 packets?
This question is important for large EDNS packets
On (2013-08-27 10:45 +0200), Emile Aben wrote:
224 vantage points, 10 failed.
48 byte ping:42 out of 3406 vantage points fail (1.0%)
1473 byte ping: 180 out of 3540 vantage points fail (5.1%)
Nice, it's starting to almost sound like data rather than anecdote, both
tests implicate 45%
On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2013-08-27 10:45 +0200), Emile Aben wrote:
224 vantage points, 10 failed.
48 byte ping:42 out of 3406 vantage points fail (1.0%)
1473 byte ping: 180 out of 3540 vantage points fail (5.1%)
Nice, it's starting to almost
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:34:57 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
That's a lot of questions he didn't ask.
This isn't your first rodeo. You should know by now that the question
actually asked, the question *meant* to be asked, and the question that
actually needed answering are often 3 different things.
And then you have other issues like networks that arbitrarily set DF on all
packets passing through them. That burnt a good three days of my life back
in the day.
-Blake
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:34:57 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
On 8/27/2013 10:04 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2013-08-27 10:45 +0200), Emile Aben wrote:
224 vantage points, 10 failed.
48 byte ping:42 out of 3406 vantage points fail (1.0%)
1473 byte ping: 180 out of 3540 vantage points
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Christopher Palmer
christopher.pal...@microsoft.com wrote:
What is the probability that a random path between two Internet
hosts will traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on
fragmented IPv4 packets?
Hi Christopher,
I think there might be three
On Aug 27, 2013, at 07:33 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:34:57 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
That's a lot of questions he didn't ask.
This isn't your first rodeo. You should know by now that the question
actually asked, the question *meant* to be asked, and the
I am trolling for information/community wisdom.
What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts will
traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented IPv4 packets?
If anyone has any data or anecdotes, please feel free to send an off-list email
or
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:01:45 -, Christopher Palmer said:
What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts will
traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented IPv4 packets?
THe fact you're posting indicates that you already know the practical
answer:
34 matches
Mail list logo
