RE: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-15 Thread Mark Segal

When I checked last week 1 in 4 packets was an ICMP message, so we rate
limited ICMP ECHO and ICMP ECHO-REPLY messages.. And it only bugged PING'ers
and windows traceroute users..  All those low memory alarms are now no
longer plaguing our NMS.

Mark


--
Mark Segal 
Director, Network Planning
FCI Broadband 
Tel: 905-284-4070 
Fax: 416-987-4701 
http://www.fcibroadband.com

Futureway Communications Inc. is now FCI Broadband


-Original Message-
From: John Souvestre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: September 13, 2003 11:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem



Hi.

I've been running with the service policy version and haven't seen any
problem either.  I did notice that it seems to block DOS traceroutes,
however.

John

John Souvestre - Southern Star - (504) 888-3348 - www.sstar.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:18 PM
To: William Devine, II
Cc: Nanog
Subject: Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem
Importance: High


That's really weird.  I've been running with 

route-map nachiworm permit 10
 match ip address nachilist
 match length 92 92
 set interface Null0

ip access-list extended nachilist
 permit icmp any any echo
 permit icmp any any echo-reply

ip policy route-map nachiworm

on transit interfaces and the virtual-templates of all our access servers 
that can do it properly (just blocking echo/echo-reply on the older ones 
that can't do the policy) and haven't heard about any customer complaints 
other than I can't ping in the places where we've blocked all 
echo/echo-reply.  The routers doing this (7200/7500)'s are all running 
12.2(1-3)S.  Access servers are running mostly 12.1M or 12.2XB code. 




Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-13 Thread jlewis

That's really weird.  I've been running with 

route-map nachiworm permit 10
 match ip address nachilist
 match length 92 92
 set interface Null0

ip access-list extended nachilist
 permit icmp any any echo
 permit icmp any any echo-reply

ip policy route-map nachiworm

on transit interfaces and the virtual-templates of all our access servers 
that can do it properly (just blocking echo/echo-reply on the older ones 
that can't do the policy) and haven't heard about any customer complaints 
other than I can't ping in the places where we've blocked all 
echo/echo-reply.  The routers doing this (7200/7500)'s are all running 
12.2(1-3)S.  Access servers are running mostly 12.1M or 12.2XB code. 

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, William Devine, II wrote:

 I had the exact same problem.  As soon as I turned it on, within minutes I
 had customers calling that could no longer FTP into Win2k servers and some
 that couldn't SSH into their Linux servers.
 I've since turned it off as well.
 Are there any other known ways to block this?
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: Nanog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 1:32 PM
 Subject: Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem
 
  I don't have it in place anymore (because it caused more problems than
  it fixed), so I can't test this.  In any case, the route map only
  matched 92 byte ICMP echo and ICMP echo-reply packets, which is not what
  PMTU uses, so it shouldn't have had a problem.  Also, I know that the
  MTU along the path for the person in the office is the same all the way,
  so PMTU shouldn't come into play there.

--
 Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  I route
 System Administrator|  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|  
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_



RE: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-13 Thread John Souvestre

Hi.

I've been running with the service policy version and haven't seen any
problem either.  I did notice that it seems to block DOS traceroutes,
however.

John

John Souvestre - Southern Star - (504) 888-3348 - www.sstar.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:18 PM
To: William Devine, II
Cc: Nanog
Subject: Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem
Importance: High


That's really weird.  I've been running with 

route-map nachiworm permit 10
 match ip address nachilist
 match length 92 92
 set interface Null0

ip access-list extended nachilist
 permit icmp any any echo
 permit icmp any any echo-reply

ip policy route-map nachiworm

on transit interfaces and the virtual-templates of all our access servers 
that can do it properly (just blocking echo/echo-reply on the older ones 
that can't do the policy) and haven't heard about any customer complaints 
other than I can't ping in the places where we've blocked all 
echo/echo-reply.  The routers doing this (7200/7500)'s are all running 
12.2(1-3)S.  Access servers are running mostly 12.1M or 12.2XB code. 





92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-12 Thread Richard J . Sears

We started blocking 92 Byte ICMP packets on our ingress points on our
core backbone routers.

This was a recommendation from Cisco to help mitigate the effects of the
Nachi worm.

Since then, we have been hammered with customer complaints concerning
the inability to talk to mail servers and ssh to their servers, as well
as other weird network issues, all centering around the time we started
blocking 92 Byte ICMP packets.

Has anyone else seen this, and if so, is the only resolution to stop the
blockage of 92 Byte ICMP Packets..?

Thanks

Richard





Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-12 Thread Chris Adams

Once upon a time, Richard J.Sears [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 Since then, we have been hammered with customer complaints concerning
 the inability to talk to mail servers and ssh to their servers, as well
 as other weird network issues, all centering around the time we started
 blocking 92 Byte ICMP packets.
 
 Has anyone else seen this, and if so, is the only resolution to stop the
 blockage of 92 Byte ICMP Packets..?

Yes.  As soon as we put the policy route map in place, we had some
people unable to talk via SSH, SMTP, or POP3.  It was random: one person
here in the office couldn't SSH to a particular server.  He could SSH to
other servers, and the rest of us could SSH to the server he could not.
We had similar experiences with SMTP and POP3.  When we took the policy
route map back out, the problems went away.

This is with IOS 12.0(25)S1 on a 7513 doing dCEF.  We put the policy
route map on the FE interface linking this router to the POP core
router; this router has MC-T3 interfaces and ethernets to Ascend TNTs
and such.  The intent was to stop the 92 byte ICMP echos from reaching
the Ascend TNTs, since several of them were rebooting constantly.

-- 
Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.


Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-12 Thread Chris Adams

Once upon a time, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Adams writes:
 Yes.  As soon as we put the policy route map in place, we had some
 people unable to talk via SSH, SMTP, or POP3.  It was random: one person
 here in the office couldn't SSH to a particular server.  He could SSH to
 other servers, and the rest of us could SSH to the server he could not.
 We had similar experiences with SMTP and POP3.  When we took the policy
 route map back out, the problems went away.
 
 This is with IOS 12.0(25)S1 on a 7513 doing dCEF.  We put the policy
 route map on the FE interface linking this router to the POP core
 router; this router has MC-T3 interfaces and ethernets to Ascend TNTs
 and such.  The intent was to stop the 92 byte ICMP echos from reaching
 the Ascend TNTs, since several of them were rebooting constantly.
 
 I wonder if it's a Path MTU problem.  Can you turn off Path MTU on some 
 of the affected hosts and see if it solves the problem?

I don't have it in place anymore (because it caused more problems than
it fixed), so I can't test this.  In any case, the route map only
matched 92 byte ICMP echo and ICMP echo-reply packets, which is not what
PMTU uses, so it shouldn't have had a problem.  Also, I know that the
MTU along the path for the person in the office is the same all the way,
so PMTU shouldn't come into play there.
-- 
Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.


Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-12 Thread William Devine, II

I had the exact same problem.  As soon as I turned it on, within minutes I
had customers calling that could no longer FTP into Win2k servers and some
that couldn't SSH into their Linux servers.
I've since turned it off as well.
Are there any other known ways to block this?

william

- Original Message - 
From: Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nanog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem



 Once upon a time, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
  In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Adams writes:
  Yes.  As soon as we put the policy route map in place, we had some
  people unable to talk via SSH, SMTP, or POP3.  It was random: one
person
  here in the office couldn't SSH to a particular server.  He could SSH
to
  other servers, and the rest of us could SSH to the server he could not.
  We had similar experiences with SMTP and POP3.  When we took the policy
  route map back out, the problems went away.
  
  This is with IOS 12.0(25)S1 on a 7513 doing dCEF.  We put the policy
  route map on the FE interface linking this router to the POP core
  router; this router has MC-T3 interfaces and ethernets to Ascend TNTs
  and such.  The intent was to stop the 92 byte ICMP echos from reaching
  the Ascend TNTs, since several of them were rebooting constantly.
 
  I wonder if it's a Path MTU problem.  Can you turn off Path MTU on some
  of the affected hosts and see if it solves the problem?

 I don't have it in place anymore (because it caused more problems than
 it fixed), so I can't test this.  In any case, the route map only
 matched 92 byte ICMP echo and ICMP echo-reply packets, which is not what
 PMTU uses, so it shouldn't have had a problem.  Also, I know that the
 MTU along the path for the person in the office is the same all the way,
 so PMTU shouldn't come into play there.
 -- 
 Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
 I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.





Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-12 Thread Richard J . Sears

Hi Chris,

We were having the same exact problem with 4 TNTs that we have. In the
end, we shut off ip-route-cache on the TNTs and that fixed the problem
with them.


Richard

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:52:58 -0500
Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 Once upon a time, Richard J.Sears [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
  Since then, we have been hammered with customer complaints concerning
  the inability to talk to mail servers and ssh to their servers, as well
  as other weird network issues, all centering around the time we started
  blocking 92 Byte ICMP packets.
  
  Has anyone else seen this, and if so, is the only resolution to stop the
  blockage of 92 Byte ICMP Packets..?
 
 Yes.  As soon as we put the policy route map in place, we had some
 people unable to talk via SSH, SMTP, or POP3.  It was random: one person
 here in the office couldn't SSH to a particular server.  He could SSH to
 other servers, and the rest of us could SSH to the server he could not.
 We had similar experiences with SMTP and POP3.  When we took the policy
 route map back out, the problems went away.
 
 This is with IOS 12.0(25)S1 on a 7513 doing dCEF.  We put the policy
 route map on the FE interface linking this router to the POP core
 router; this router has MC-T3 interfaces and ethernets to Ascend TNTs
 and such.  The intent was to stop the 92 byte ICMP echos from reaching
 the Ascend TNTs, since several of them were rebooting constantly.
 
 -- 
 Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
 I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.






Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-12 Thread Chris Adams

Once upon a time, Richard J.Sears [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 We were having the same exact problem with 4 TNTs that we have. In the
 end, we shut off ip-route-cache on the TNTs and that fixed the problem
 with them.

We were only seeing it on some of our TNTs for some reason.  I didn't
turn the route cache completely off, but I did limit the size, and that
solved it for us.
-- 
Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.


Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-12 Thread james

There were some posts to this list last week about 75xx's dropping
packets outside what was specified in the ip policy route map.

-- 
James Edwards
Routing and Security
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa
Store hours: 9-6 Monday through Friday
Phone support 365 days till 10 pm via the Santa Fe office:
505-988-9200 or Toll Free: 888-988-2700



Re: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem

2003-09-12 Thread Richard J . Sears

So, the choice is to go from dCEF to CEF or to not block the 92 byte
packets at allanyone have an idea as to which is the better route to
take..?

 - Richard

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:59:54 -0700
Matt Ploessel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 See http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sn-20030820-nachi.shtml
 
 The policy-routing solutions works great in small routers (26xx, 17xx)
 
 and in 7200s. In 7500s it seems OK *UNLESS* dCEF is enabled, then it 
 does what you saw. I'm assuming it's dropping 92-byte TCP packets as 
 well as the ICMP echoes. You can see 1-packet flows of mail getting 
 dropped.
 
 Notice that the workaround cannot be used on GSRs because it causes 
 packets to be punted to the CPU... this is as bad a news as that it 
 doesn't work right on dCEF because we use GSRs or 7500s with dCEF 
 where the network is really busy.
 
 - Matt Ploessel
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Richard J.Sears [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 10:43 AM
  To: Nanog
  Subject: 92 Byte ICMP Blocking Problem
  
  
  
  We started blocking 92 Byte ICMP packets on our ingress points on our
  core backbone routers.
  
  This was a recommendation from Cisco to help mitigate the 
  effects of the
  Nachi worm.
  
  Since then, we have been hammered with customer complaints concerning
  the inability to talk to mail servers and ssh to their 
  servers, as well
  as other weird network issues, all centering around the time 
  we started
  blocking 92 Byte ICMP packets.
  
  Has anyone else seen this, and if so, is the only resolution 
  to stop the
  blockage of 92 Byte ICMP Packets..?
  
  Thanks
  
  Richard
  
  
  
  


**
Richard J. Sears
Vice President 
American Digital Network  

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.adnc.com

858.576.4272 - Phone
858.427.2401 - Fax


I fly because it releases my mind 
from the tyranny of petty things . . 


Work like you don't need the money, love like you've
never been hurt and dance like you do when nobody's
watching.