Linksys has frequent releases and I had the opportunity to stumble several times into
firmware versions where some special applications (e.g. X-Window session over IPSec)
wouldn't work. Turned out, they were playing with the MTU. Two releases further on, it
would work, then again not etc.
I wou
Found at...
http://www.ssn.unam.mx/
...which is now somewhat overrun! Nothing yet at...
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/current/m_america.html
Martin
Vadim - the newest form of SPAM uses the Messenger facility to place a
pop-up in the middle of your screen without any email, pop, smtp or other
service being involved. I apologize for the tone of the first posting, but I
still stand by it. When ISP's are held accountable for what people do with
t
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, todd glassey wrote:
> Vadim - the instant someone sues a Provider for sexual harassment from their
> spam epidemic you will start to see things change. The reason that No-Sane
> provider will block these ports or services is because they have been
> listening to their Networ
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:06:07PM -0500, hc wrote:
>
> MTU on user-end shouldn't really be an issue here.. B/c if so, then (I
> am only assuming this) how could they access other sites like yahoo.com,
> etc? I am sure your web site is no different than other common ones.
Well, you're forgetti
MTU on user-end shouldn't really be an issue here.. B/c if so, then (I
am only assuming this) how could they access other sites like yahoo.com,
etc? I am sure your web site is no different than other common ones.
Linksys routers have various issues. The best bet is to go after the
firmware and
Vadim - the instant someone sues a Provider for sexual harassment from their
spam epidemic you will start to see things change. The reason that No-Sane
provider will block these ports or services is because they have been
listening to their Network Admins too long, and in fact the problem is that
MTU on the PC's
-Original Message-
From: Mark J. Scheller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 2003-01-21, Tuesday 5:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stumper
The Linksys does have an MTU setting, and I've had my users try some lower
settings to see if it made any differences. On
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Mark J. Scheller wrote:
> The Linksys does have an MTU setting, and I've had my users try some lower
> settings to see if it made any differences. One user set the MTU on the
> Linksys as low as 1200 with no noticeable improvement.
If you're using path MTU discovery (in oth
This would depend upon the direction of the packets that are dropped and where
the broken device is.
If the 1500 byte packets are coming in from the Internet and the Linksys needs
to forward onto a smaller MTU media but finds the DF bit set it will return an
icmp fragment.. if this icmp is then d
If the MTU is not helping then go get the latest firmware. Also you
cannot use port forwarding in most linksys routers with DHCP enabled.
For those routers you have to set everyone statically and turn of DHCP
for port forwarding to work.
Mark J. Scheller wrote:
The Linksys does have an MTU s
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Mark J. Scheller wrote:
:: Here's the particulars:
::
:: Users that have Verizon DSL and a Linksys cable/DSL router have
:: difficulties accessing sites on my network -- whether they are trying
:: with http, https, smtp, pop3, ssh, ftp, etc., etc. Oh, but pings
:: seem to b
The Linksys does have an MTU setting, and I've had my users try some lower
settings to see if it made any differences. One user set the MTU on the
Linksys as low as 1200 with no noticeable improvement.
Anything else I should look at?
mS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Definitely sounds like an MTU problem. I have seen IPSEC break across
Verizon DSL with a Linksys router until the MTU on the ?PCs?" where dropped
to just under 1500 bytes to allow for the IPSEC header.
DJ
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Most DSL providers want an MTU of 1492..also there are some issues with
older firmwares and some DSL providers. You may want to also check for
an updated firmware on the Linksys site.
Ray Burkholder wrote:
This might be an MTU setting issue. If pppoe, then on my Cisco stuff,
an MTU of 1492 (I
Could this be a packet size issue ?
You might try
ping -s
and see if, say, 1500 byte and 4500 byte packets get through.m
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 05:25 PM, Mark J. Scheller wrote:
I have run into a problem that has me completely stumped, so I'm
tossing it
out to NANOG for some hel
This might be an MTU setting issue. If pppoe, then on my Cisco stuff,
an MTU of 1492 (I think that is the right value) seemed to clear things
up.
Ray Burkholder
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark J. Scheller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: January 21, 2003 18:26
> To: [EMAIL PROTECT
Are there sub-1500 byte MTUs anywhere and is one of the devices
(Linksys?) dropping the relevant icmp fragments?
Morpheus might be working by not having DF bit set..
just a possibility
test by removing any filtering of icmp
Steve
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Mark J. Scheller wrote:
>
>
> I have
MTU
I have run into a problem that has me completely stumped, so I'm tossing it
out to NANOG for some help.
Before I lay out the specifics, I'm not trying to point fingers at any
particular ISP or vendor here, but this problem only exhibits itself in very
specific configurations. Unfortunately, the
If you have done a good job negotiating Item 1, item 3 is redundant. On
the other hand if you have choosen a crappy backbone in Item 1, using
VPN/SSL/whatever to secure your packets won't help delay or nondelivery
of packets.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I absolutely agree with It
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: So did you aquire those "assets" from clearblue or where the appliedtheory's
: assets kindof devided between fastnet and clearblue? And if undertand it
: correctly apliedtheory name & domain are still with clearblue/navisite?
: If so is i
I absolutely agree with Item 3. Sure, IP itself doesn't protect against
those things, but if a BN doesn't provide service without delay,
misdelivery,
or nondelivery of otherwise adequately protected information (valid
packets),
then the BN isn't very useful.
If I met all the other criteria her
I've been looking at a lot of different technical security architectures
for network providers. Obviously many providers keep their security
secret, so they may or may not have a decent security architecture.
Nevertheless there is still a lot of good information available from
government agency n
Only if they include it in the growth, performance, or other metrics. I
would _hope_ that it would have the worst tickets/revenue ratio in their
database, but you never know...
DJ
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Rubens Kuhl Jr.
> S
And for those attending the Gigabit Peering Forum in Los Angeles following
NANOG, please drop me a line <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if you can make the dinner out
in Malibu at http://www.gladstones.com on the 12th.
Cheers, -ren
At 08:16 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, William B. Norton wrote:
Hi all -
If you ar
I asked them about that they claimed it was not.. we'll see :)
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:17:48AM -0800, Brian wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised if it were taken down deliberately for information
> modification's sake.
>
> Bri
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Len Rose" <[EMAIL PROTE
I wouldn't be surprised if it were taken down deliberately for information
modification's sake.
Bri
- Original Message -
From: "Len Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:35 AM
Subject: .gov whois server down
>
>
> It looks like it's bro
Josh, others,
> I am interested in hearing how/if TTM (Test Traffic Measurements) is
> currently being used in North American networks.
At the moment, there are 8 sites participating in the measurements and a
9th ordered its test-box this morning. The 8 boxes are located in Palo
Alto, Denver (2
It looks like it's broken.. I called their
helpdesk and they're looking into it.
Len
30 matches
Mail list logo
