Thanks to those who responded off list.
Much appreciated.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Neitzert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:04 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: AOL NOC CONTACT?
Hi,
Does anyone have AOL NOC Contact information?
Thanks
Chris
--
Ch
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 20 aug 2008, at 20:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hypothetically true. Unfortunately, enough places do bozo
firewalling and drop
the ICMP Frag Needed packets to severely limit the utility of PMTU
Discovery.
Yet all OSes have it enabled and there is no fallback t
Hi,
Does anyone have AOL NOC Contact information?
Thanks
Chris
--
Christopher Neitzert
Director Information Technology & Data Center Operations
Redfin Corporation http://www.redfin.com
The "network" may not but the end hosts may try. Many client operating systems
perform PMTU by default. Some also do blackhole probing that can also change
the MTU.
--
Tim Sanderson, network administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sen
>>> On 8/20/2008 at 11:57 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 20 aug 2008, at 20:34, Crist Clark wrote:
>
>> On a "true" P-to-P link, there is no netmask, no? A netmask is a
>> concept that applies to broadcast media, like Ethernet. Even if
>> you only have two hosts on an Eth
Thank you to the people who replied off-list, especially Eric Mort of XO
and Jim Arrows of Network Solutions in helping find the cause of this
problem.
Joe Johnson
Senior Systems Engineer
InnerWorkings, Inc.
Managed Print & Promotional Solutions
600 West Chicago Avenue, Suite 850
Chicago, IL 606
On 20 aug 2008, at 20:34, Crist Clark wrote:
On a "true" P-to-P link, there is no netmask, no? A netmask is a
concept that applies to broadcast media, like Ethernet. Even if
you only have two hosts on an Ethernet link, it's not really
P-to-P in the strict sense.
An interface needs a prefix len
On 2008/08/20 08:04 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:43:44 +0530, Glen Kent said:
Do transit routers in the wild actually get to do IP fragmentation
these days? I was wondering if routers actually do it or not, because
the source usually discovers the path MTU and sends its dat
Correction.
TTL needs to be set to sufficiently large number of hops to allow the packet to
get through the number of hops and the timers need to be set to allow the
packet to transit the network and the low speed links before timing out and
retransmitting the packet.
John (ISDN) Lee
>>> On 8/20/2008 at 1:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 20 aug 2008, at 3:31, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next week at
>> apops:
>
>> http://www.attn.jp/presentation/apnic26-maz-ipv6-p2p.pdf
>
> He (she?) says pack
Glen,
With the v4 networks that I have worked on in the past, they did not do end to
end MTU discovery before sending packets. The TTL had to be set appropriately
so that if you had low speed links, for example, the packet and response would
get through in time. On our DS3 (T3) and OC-3c packet
On 20 aug 2008, at 20:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hypothetically true. Unfortunately, enough places do bozo
firewalling and drop
the ICMP Frag Needed packets to severely limit the utility of PMTU
Discovery.
Yet all OSes have it enabled and there is no fallback to fragmentation
in PMTUD:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:43:44 +0530, Glen Kent said:
> Do transit routers in the wild actually get to do IP fragmentation
> these days? I was wondering if routers actually do it or not, because
> the source usually discovers the path MTU and sends its data with the
> least supported MTU. Is this tru
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 09:43:44PM +0530, Glen Kent wrote:
Do transit routers in the wild actually get to do IP fragmentation
these days? [...]
Yes.
A GigE jumbo frames host (9120) to a standard POS interface (4420)
to a DS3 customer (1500) happens, an
In a message written on Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 09:43:44PM +0530, Glen Kent wrote:
> Do transit routers in the wild actually get to do IP fragmentation
> these days? I was wondering if routers actually do it or not, because
> the source usually discovers the path MTU and sends its data with the
> leas
Glen Kent wrote:
Do transit routers in the wild actually get to do IP fragmentation
these days? I was wondering if routers actually do it or not, because
the source usually discovers the path MTU and sends its data with the
least supported MTU. Is this true?
I believe that is only true for TCP
On 20/08/2008, at 4:42 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
Teredo uses 3544/UDP to for Client<->Server communication. That is
for relay discovery when needed, and the qualification procedure -
not much traffic. Client<->Relay communication MAY use 3544/UDP,
Client<->Client communication MAY use 3544/UDP.
Hi,
Do transit routers in the wild actually get to do IP fragmentation
these days? I was wondering if routers actually do it or not, because
the source usually discovers the path MTU and sends its data with the
least supported MTU. Is this true?
Even if this is, then this would break for multicas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next
week at apops:
To summarize, using /64 on a link opens the door to a DOS
problem that we need to pressure the vendors to fix.
How is this not an obvious 'duh' kind of situation that just depends on
doing on
Is there anyone at XO or Network Solutions that can help me with a
little problem we're having? About two days ago we lost the ability to
pass all traffic with Network Solutions hosted email and their main
website from our main office. It keeps dying at a router in DC.
Here's a trace from our Chic
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Kevin Loch wrote:
While you're at it, you also placed the reachable-via rx on
all your customer interfaces. If you're paranoid, start with the 'any'
rpf and then move to the strict rpf. The strict rpf also helps with
routing loops.
Be careful
> matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next
> week at apops:
To summarize, using /64 on a link opens the door to a DOS
problem that we need to pressure the vendors to fix.
Obviously, this matters more to people who are running
full-blown production IPv6 networks right now tha
On 20 aug 2008, at 3:31, Randy Bush wrote:
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next week at
apops:
http://www.attn.jp/presentation/apnic26-maz-ipv6-p2p.pdf
He (she?) says packets will ping-pong across the link if they are
addressed to an address on the p2p subnet th
On 19 aug 2008, at 22:29, Kevin Loch wrote:
I thought there was an issue with duplicate address detection with /
127
(RFC3627)?
Don't know about that, but the all-zeroes address is supposed to be
the all-routers anycast address. Cisco doesn't implement this, so /127
works on those, but th
> I don't operate an ISP network (not anymore, anyway...). My
> customers are departments within my organization, so a /64
> per department/VLAN is more sane/reasonable for my environment.
Some time ago there was a discussion on IPv6 addressing plans
spread out over a couple of days. I incorpor
25 matches
Mail list logo
