Hi!
To clarify my problem, I have found another example: www.snom.de
Trace from our core:
HOST: lyta.local Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst
StDev
1. 192.168.6.1 0.0%100.3 0.4 0.3
0.6 0.1
2. ge-00.cr1.ems.dlrz.net0.0%10
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:21:26AM +0100, Matthias Gelbhardt wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for bringing this up again, but something bothers me.
>
> On several targets the traceroute or mtr is not going through clean,
> whereas on my home dsl line it is. I thought about, that every target
> where we
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 07:45:48AM +0100, Matthias Gelbhardt wrote:
> Hi!
>
> That seens to be not working (From datacenter, from home dsl that
> works)q:
>
> traceroute to amazon.de (87.238.81.130), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 91.190.227.17 (91.190.227.17) 0.160 ms 0.279 ms *
> 2 *
Hi!
That seens to be not working (From datacenter, from home dsl that
works)q:
traceroute to amazon.de (87.238.81.130), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 91.190.227.17 (91.190.227.17) 0.160 ms 0.279 ms *
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 * * *
5 * * *
6 * * *
7 * * *
8 * * *
9 www.amazon.de
Hi!
Sorry for bringing this up again, but something bothers me.
On several targets the traceroute or mtr is not going through clean,
whereas on my home dsl line it is. I thought about, that every target
where we have asymmetric routing is behaving like this, but if you
say, asymmetric rout
* keegan.hol...@sungard.com
> My apologies I misunderstood your question. However, isn't ICMP into
> your connector networks a small thing? I don't think anything
> catastrophic would happen if someone pinged your router and the return
> traffic took your primary link. The traceroute packets wou
[...]
> I guess you could do filter based forwarding to rectify
> this behavior, but it seem a little like putting out a
> match with a firehose.
It's tough to design a simple yet consistent filter-based
solution; on the other hand, VRs/VRFs are self-consistent in
this respect. Heh.
Peter E.
2c
Keegan
From:
Tore Anderson
To:
keegan.hol...@sungard.com
Cc:
juniper-nsp , "Justin M. Streiner"
Date:
02/06/2009 12:20 PM
Subject:
Re: [j-nsp] network engineering
* keegan.hol...@sungard.com
> Direct routes always take precedence over BGP unless it's configured
> othe
* keegan.hol...@sungard.com
> Direct routes always take precedence over BGP unless it's configured
> otherwise so hopefully this address is in your IGP or next hop self is
> configured. Also, if you talking only about the directly connected
> route used for your peer, wouldn't the return traffic
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tore Anderson wrote:
123.0.0.x is part of AS123's PA space, 321.0.0.x is part of AS321's.
Routes received from AS123 has a higher localpref than those from AS321,
for whatever reason - like simply being cheaper.
If someone on the other side of the internet now sends an ICMP
dvertising 123.0.0/30 to AS321 and vice versa?
From:
Tore Anderson
To:
"Justin M. Streiner"
Cc:
juniper-nsp
Date:
02/06/2009 11:43 AM
Subject:
Re: [j-nsp] network engineering
Sent by:
juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
* Justin M. Streiner
> There is a common misconception tha
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 10:20:31AM -0500, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> There is a common misconception that asymmetric routing is somehow bad.
RFC 3449 suggests the same.
I'm not sure how much of this is still relevant for current TCP
implementations, I haven't dug into details again.
Best rega
* Justin M. Streiner
> There is a common misconception that asymmetric routing is somehow bad.
> Yes, it can make troubleshooting connectivity problems a bit more
> involved, but asymmetry is a perfectly normal condition. Also, even if
> you were to enforce symmetry within your network, there is
- Original Message -
From: Mark Tinka
> On Friday 06 February 2009 05:09:30 pm Matthias Gelbhardt
> wrote:
>
> > We have asymmetric routing in several cases. I would
> > like to know, how you would deal against that?
>
> The moment you're multi-homed to the Internet, asymmetric
> rout
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Matthias Gelbhardt wrote:
We have asymmetric routing in several cases. I would like to know, how you
would deal against that? Is there a simple way to send the packets out of the
same interface, they are received? But on the other hand, many packets are
send out by us, and
or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
From:
Matthias Gelbhardt
To:
juniper-nsp
Date:
02/06/2009 04:12 AM
Subject:
[j-nsp] network engineering
Sent by:
juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
Hi!
I hav
On Friday 06 February 2009 05:09:30 pm Matthias Gelbhardt
wrote:
> We have asymmetric routing in several cases. I would like
> to know, how you would deal against that?
The moment you're multi-homed to the Internet, asymmetric
routing is a fact of life; and it's not really a bad thing.
How tra
Hi!
I have a little network engineering question and I would like to know
the best practice for that.
We have asymmetric routing in several cases. I would like to know, how
you would deal against that? Is there a simple way to send the packets
out of the same interface, they are received?
18 matches
Mail list logo
