Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why is this a problem? ECN has to be deployed on routers, and it
>> currently isn't.
>
> Because tcp connection endpoints have to implement ECN in order to manage
> the flow.
A naive reader might think from Dan's posting that the Internet didn't
work
On 29 Dec 2004, at 18:48, Tony Rall wrote:
On Wednesday, 2004-12-29 at 17:04 EST, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Are there any common examples of the DF bit being set on non-TCP
packets?
Common? It depends on what you're doing. To some people, the only
common
application is 80/tcp.
Sure
On 30-dec-04, at 0:48, Tony Rall wrote:
Remember that the DF bit is in the IP header - it can be on in any
protocol. I know that AIX and my old RH Linux (at least) defaults to
PMTUD enabled for tcp and udp. You can even see it in dns lookups.
I'm interested to learn what a poor unsuspecting UDP a
On 29 Dec 2004, at 18:39, Alex Bligh wrote:
--On 29 December 2004 17:04 -0500 Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But that only affects tcp traffic - it does nothing to help other
protocols.
Are there any common examples of the DF bit being set on non-TCP
packets?
traceroute
Ah, but that's only
On Wednesday, 2004-12-29 at 17:04 EST, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2004, at 16:33, Tony Rall wrote:
> > But that only affects tcp traffic - it does nothing to help other
> > protocols.
>
> Are there any common examples of the DF bit being set on non-TCP
> packets?
Common? I
Regardless of this, it's probably a good idea to obsolete the
original meaning of the DF bit.
So my next question is: Is it safe for the entire internet to ignore
the DF bit entirely? Sounds like it would save plenty of router
manufactures, plenty of time/effort.
Apparently Cisco's official r
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Dan Hollis:
> > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Jerry Pasker wrote:
> >> Is there an RFC that clearly states: "The internet needs to transit
> >> 1500 byte packets without fragmentation."??
> > Actually the bigger problem imo is the number of sites which block
--On 29 December 2004 17:04 -0500 Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But that only affects tcp traffic - it does nothing to help other
protocols.
Are there any common examples of the DF bit being set on non-TCP packets?
traceroute
Alex
TR> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:33:44 -0800
TR> From: Tony Rall
TR> The better solution is to ensure that PMTUD works correctly for your
TR> network, and get on the case of any correspondent or provider for
TR> which it doesn't.
"But $investment_firm is a big company whose site I must access."
E
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Dec 2004, at 16:33, Tony Rall wrote:
>
> > But that only affects tcp traffic - it does nothing to help other
> > protocols.
>
> Are there any common examples of the DF bit being set on non-TCP
> packets?
It's not unheard of for tunelling techn
I'm seeing a good path from LAX at this point.
5 tbr1-p013501.la2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.11.137) [AS 7018] 4 msec 0 msec 0
msec
6 tbr2-cl3.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.10.25) [AS 7018] 12 msec 8 msec 12
msec
7 tbr1-cl1.st6wa.ip.att.net (12.122.12.114) [AS 7018] 32 msec 28 msec 32
msec
You can
On 29-dec-04, at 22:33, Tony Rall wrote:
and who are able to get along
just fine by reducing the advertised MSS in their TCP stack.
But that only affects tcp traffic - it does nothing to help other
protocols.
I've never seen anything other than TCP set the DF bit...
On 29 Dec 2004, at 16:33, Tony Rall wrote:
But that only affects tcp traffic - it does nothing to help other
protocols.
Are there any common examples of the DF bit being set on non-TCP
packets?
The better solution is to ensure that PMTUD works correctly for your
network, and get on the case of a
On 29-dec-04, at 22:25, Fred Baker wrote:
That said, RFC 1042 ("Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams
over IEEE 802 networks.") notes that
Note that the MTU for the Ethernet allows a 1500 octet IP datagram,
with the MTU for the 802.3 network allows only a 1492 octet IP
datagram.
On Wednesday, 2004-12-29 at 13:43 EST, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, there are a growing throng of broadband users who have PPTP or
> other encaps between them and the world,
Encapsulated traffic (vpns, etc.) is indeed what I see as the largest
contributor to connectivity probl
At 01:43 PM 12/29/04 -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
Is there an RFC that clearly states: "The internet needs to transit 1500
byte packets without fragmentation."??
Not to my knowledge, and since the hoardes of users mentioned above
present a clear, deployed counter-example it seems unlikely that one wil
Hello,
Richard Steenbergen has released IRR Power Tools, a PHP and CVS-based
framework for using IRR data to manage prefix-lists for BGP customers.
You can learn more about his project at:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/irrpt/
This seems particularly relevant given recent outages attributed
Any one having packet loss problems with Level3 Chicago? The other day a
L3 router was having a ddos attack but it has been fixed this is a
separate problem, packet loss. Specifically their bb2 router at 111 N
canal.
Best Wishes,
Blake L. Smith
XtremeBandwidth.com, Inc.
949-330-6400 Office
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Jerry Pasker wrote:
> Is there an RFC that clearly states: "The internet needs to transit
> 1500 byte packets without fragmentation."??
Actually the bigger problem imo is the number of sites which block ECN
http://urchin.earth.li/ecn/
Even worse are the networks which incor
thanks guys.. do any of you have a good link to keep taps on status of
this downage?
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:33:00 -0800, John Fabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A fiber cable was cut
>
> ~John Fabello
>
> 425-456-8900
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pablo's Gmail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
Is anyone else seeing major ATT issues in the pacific NW?
Pablo
On 29-dec-04, at 19:30, Jerry Pasker wrote:
When encountering networks with MTUs smaller than 1500 bytes, path MTU
discovery breaks
What you mean is: sites that employ non-first hop links with MTUs
smaller than 1500 bytes experience frequent reachability problems.
block all icmp, including the i
On 29 Dec 2004, at 13:30, Jerry Pasker wrote:
Operational comment, question:
I've learned that having an MTU smaller than 1500 bytes is a bad
thing. When encountering networks with MTUs smaller than 1500 bytes,
path MTU discovery breaks when sites like a computer science college
my friend is g
Operational comment, question:
I've learned that having an MTU smaller than 1500 bytes is a bad
thing. When encountering networks with MTUs smaller than 1500 bytes,
path MTU discovery breaks when sites like a computer science college
my friend is going to .edu, a certain 'us' online bank.com, a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> I usually ignore spam other than to sift through my spambox for false
> positives from time to time, but now I got one that was significantly
> higher up the annoyance scale. A quote:
>
> "we can offer you stolen data about credit cards of Eur
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Iljitsch van Beijn
um writes:
>
>I usually ignore spam other than to sift through my spambox for false
>positives from time to time, but now I got one that was significantly
>higher up the annoyance scale. A quote:
>
>"we can offer you stolen data about credit car
I usually ignore spam other than to sift through my spambox for false
positives from time to time, but now I got one that was significantly
higher up the annoyance scale. A quote:
"we can offer you stolen data about credit cards of Europe and USA
inhabitants and also of Asian countries. Here an
27 matches
Mail list logo
