It seems like a lame excuse. tcptraceroute is to bypass firewall.
Normally you would run traceroute. Which suggest they might block a
larger range of ports. Nmap would show all the ranges are blocked.
BTW, tell them to use ZombieZapper against DDOS.
BTW,
Top Netvision support people have claimed that it's an anti-DDOS mechanism
But that seems strange - I mean, filtering legitimate TCP web requests
(tcptracroute) - 20% of the packets over just a few requests?
Can anyone on Netvision try a simple web request with a sniffer and
see if
Apr 2008, Michael Tewner wrote:
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:51:06 +0300
From: Michael Tewner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IGLU Mailing list linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: major packet loss at hot server
Yeah - I seem
Yeah - I seem to be getting 20-30% loss on TCP packets to www.cnn.com
on the same router that was dropping the ICMP packets. (#4 below)
Selected device eth0, address 10.1.1.193, port 38669 for outgoing packets
Tracing the path to www.cnn.com (64.236.29.120) on TCP port 80 (www),
30 hops max
1
Netvision router.
FYI,
- yba
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Michael Tewner wrote:
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:51:06 +0300
From: Michael Tewner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IGLU Mailing list linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: major packet loss at hot server
Yeah - I seem
packet loss at hot server
Yeah - I seem to be getting 20-30% loss on TCP packets to www.cnn.com
on the same router that was dropping the ICMP packets. (#4 below)
Selected device eth0, address 10.1.1.193, port 38669 for outgoing packets
Tracing the path to www.cnn.com (64.236.29.120
@cs.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: major packet loss at hot server
I don't have a machine that runs tcpdump. Plus it needs root access.
I wonder if I create one of these free shells that are out there, will
it help? tcpdump will work without root as well?
Last time I talked with 012 and hot, hot managed
OK - I decided to give this a look, because I'm not happy with my
transfer speeds -
I ran mtr from work (Netvision 5Mbit(?) ) to my home IP (Hot+Netvision):
4. vl100.coresw1.hfa.nv.net.il
23.0% 279 10.7 15.2 8.2 172.4 15.2
5. ge1-7.coresw1.ptk.nv.net.il
Just talked to Netvision Asakim support -
He was knowlegable - ran `mtr` on his workstation and saw the packet loss.
He explained that there is no problem and that the core routers are
dropping the ping packets based on the amount of load on the router.
He explained that the router should only
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Michael Tewner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just talked to Netvision Asakim support -
He was knowlegable - ran `mtr` on his workstation and saw the packet
loss.
He explained that there is no problem and that the core routers are
dropping the ping packets based
.
Shavua Tov,
- yba
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, sara fink wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:43:37 +0300
From: sara fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Ben Avraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: major packet loss at hot server
I
:
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:43:37 +0300
From: sara fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Ben Avraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: major packet loss at hot server
I haven't solved the problem yet. From 012 someone superior (network
dep
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, sara fink wrote:
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:48:41 +0300
From: sara fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Ben Avraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: major packet loss at hot server
I can't check symmetry. I don't have adsl. In my case the problem
knows someone who knows you.
Shavua Tov,
- yba
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, sara fink wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:43:37 +0300
From: sara fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Ben Avraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: major packet loss at hot server
I haven't
, or who knows someone who knows you.
Shavua Tov,
- yba
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, sara fink wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:43:37 +0300
From: sara fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Ben Avraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: major packet loss at hot server
I haven't
I haven't solved the problem yet. From 012 someone superior (network
dep) are supposed to call me and they will put hot on conference and
this time I intend to request the net admin/integrator to take care of
that AND ask them to go directly to the switch and disable the
firewall.The ip from where
From a recent posting:
At one time all packets between ISPs went via the IIX, which tends to
become overloaded in the afternoon.
Not exactly. Let's call this Misconception #1.
I don't know if that has changed,
and if it has for all packets, or just ones that the ISPs want to have
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 04:22:52PM +0200, Doron Shikmoni wrote:
This introduced high latency on that particular link; traceroute done
to debug that would have always shown the IIX on one end of the problem,
and hence, fingers were pointed at IIX as being the culprit. It wasn't.
Thanks, it's
Hi,
I live in Givatayim, and connected to the internet through HOT Bezeqint.
Also, the connection to Bezeqint is without VPN (aka. חייגן)
Apparently, I have some packet loss too. It appears like the packet loss are
occurring exactly in the connection between HOT and Bezeqint.
The following is
After having seen some E-mail messages about this subject, I decided to
run my own tests.
I found that when mtr'ing Israeli hosts, I get packet loss. When
mtr'ing international hosts (www.yahoo.com, www.google.com, zak.co.il
[hosted outside of Israel], I get less packet loss than when mtr'ing
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:32:28AM +0200, Omer Zak wrote:
I found that when mtr'ing Israeli hosts, I get packet loss. When
mtr'ing international hosts (www.yahoo.com, www.google.com, zak.co.il
[hosted outside of Israel], I get less packet loss than when mtr'ing
Israeli hosts. Weird!
Not
Hi,
Not at all. Remember that the packets have to go through gateways.
So I wonder, are those ISP's using Cisco's 1XXX/2XXX routers which
makes those packet loss?
An ISP should have a very fast equipment which shouldn't loose packet
like nuts. Thats unacceptable these days, specially when it
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:59:12AM +0200, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
So I wonder, are those ISP's using Cisco's 1XXX/2XXX routers which
makes those packet loss?
An ISP should have a very fast equipment which shouldn't loose packet
like nuts. Thats unacceptable these days, specially when it comes to
I found out that in my case they blocked all ports except 8010. So
there is no need for QOS. But I am going to tell them.
As for hot, they use some cisco routers and some jerky
routers/switches like Juniper Networks M10 or M320 router or similar
versions of juniper.
In my case there is major
nteresting indeed. I will check these machines. BTW, someone suggested
to run mtr with a higher mtu. I tried with this command:
mtr --psize 1500 google.com . With this size I get an empty screen.
Also tried with psize 800 and I also get empty screen. With psize 500
I get the path to google but
Their magic say os problem OR something in the OS blocks it.
There was a more educated tech at my place and he saw. He had windows
on his laptop.
The ip is definitely at hot.
When you had the problem?
I see it immediately in dc++. It doesn't connect to hubs.
I live in Haifa. But the
I was having the same problem with HOT in Lehavim.
I came near 30% packet loss. Both a linux laptop and WinXP desktop had
the same results.
Still the bezeqin tech support guy insisted that the problem was with
the OS and I had to format and re-install windows. After 30 minutes on
line with
I use ADSL (5Mbit). My ISP: Netvision.
It seems that they also have some serious packet drops even from my
machine to Netvision! check this out: (problems are marked with
arrows)
/mtr -c 10 -r netvision.net.il
HOST: witch.dyndns.orgLoss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1.
28 matches
Mail list logo
