>> this needs publication on your adventure game of a web site, please. it
>> will seriously 'inform' some discussion going back and forth on ietf
>> lists.
>
> This is now published on RIPE Labs. For the adventurous:
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-packet-size-matters
some
On 31/08/2013 13:09, Randy Bush wrote:
i wonder if this is correlated with the high number of probes being
behind nats.
>>
>> Maybe this provides a bit of insight:
>> From a test last week from all RIPE Atlas probes to a single "known
>> good" MTU 1500 host I compared probes where I had b
I know I'm digging up an old thread here but I've spent some time
analyzing some of the significant changes that Apple has made to the
Facetime protocol, apparently with a huge focus on IP packet size to
avoid fragmentation issues:
http://blog.krisk.org/2013/09/apples-new-facetime-sip-perspective.
On Sep 1, 2013, at 23:11 , "Fred Baker (fred)" wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> If I send a packet out as a legitimate series of fragments, what is the
>> chance
>> that they will get dropped somewhere in the middle of the path between the
>> emitting host and
On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If I send a packet out as a legitimate series of fragments, what is the chance
> that they will get dropped somewhere in the middle of the path between the
> emitting host and the receiving host?
>
> To my thinking, the answer to that question
On 31/08/2013 13:13, Randy Bush wrote:
> could you please test with ipv6?
This is what I see for various IPv6 payloads (large ICMPv6 echo
requests) from all RIPE Atlas probes that where available at the time to
a single "known good" MTU 1500 destination:
plenfail% nr_probes
100 9.64
>>> i wonder if this is correlated with the high number of probes being
>>> behind nats.
>
> Maybe this provides a bit of insight:
> From a test last week from all RIPE Atlas probes to a single "known
> good" MTU 1500 host I compared probes where I had both a ping test with
> ipv4.len 1020 and ipv
could you please test with ipv6?
thanks!
randy
On 30/08/2013 16:36, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> On 08/30/2013 01:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> In a study using the RIPE Atlas probes, we have used a heuristic to
>>> figure out where the fragments where dropped. And from the Atlas
>>> probes where IP fragments did not arrive, there is a high likeli
On 08/30/2013 01:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> In a study using the RIPE Atlas probes, we have used a heuristic to
>> figure out where the fragments where dropped. And from the Atlas
>> probes where IP fragments did not arrive, there is a high likelihood
>> the problem is with the last hop to the At
> In a study using the RIPE Atlas probes, we have used a heuristic to
> figure out where the fragments where dropped. And from the Atlas
> probes where IP fragments did not arrive, there is a high likelihood
> the problem is with the last hop to the Atlas probe.
i wonder if this is correlated wit
Mark Andrews wrote:
> Ensure that the firealls at both ends pass ICMP/ICMPv6 PTB. Only
> idiots block all ICMP/ICMPv6. Yes there are a lot of idiots in the
> world.
The worst idiots are people who designed ICMPv6 [RFC2463] as:
(e.2) a packet destined to an IPv6 multicast address (ther
On Aug 29, 2013, at 18:15 , Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message
> .com>, Christopher Palmer writes:
>> This is what I'm concerned about:
>>
>> """
>> 1. If I originate IP packet fragments, such as an 8000 byte NFS packet
>> broken into 1500 byte fragments, what's the probability of some host
elpful.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of William
> Herrin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:45 AM
> To: Christopher Palmer
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: IP Fragmentation - Not rel
thanks to everyone who has sent thoughts already, really quite helpful.
-Original Message-
From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Christopher Palmer
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject:
On 29/08/2013 04:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Has the path MTU been measured for all vantage point pairs?
I didn't, but see
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/publications/pmtu-black-holes-msc-thesis.pdf
Fig 23 (page 24) for path MTU data from roughly a year ago (thanks
Benno for posting that link).
On 8/27/13 4:04 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the failure rate is higher, and here's why.
>
> The #1 cause of fragments being dropped is firewalls. Too many
> admins configuring a firewall do not understand fragments or how to
> properly put them in the rules.
>
> Where do firewalls
Has the path MTU been measured for all vantage point pairs?
Is it known to be 1500 or just the end-point MTUs?
That could affect your results very differently.
Owen
On Aug 28, 2013, at 02:26 , Emile Aben wrote:
> On 28/08/2013 08:05, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> * Owen DeLong
>>
>>> On Aug 27, 20
On 28/08/2013 08:05, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Owen DeLong
>
>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 07:33 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>
>>> Saku Ytti and Emile Aben have numbers that say otherwise. And there must
>>> be a significantly bigger percentage of failures than "pretty close to 0",
>>> or Path MTU
* Owen DeLong
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 07:33 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> Saku Ytti and Emile Aben have numbers that say otherwise. And there must
>> be a significantly bigger percentage of failures than "pretty close to 0",
>> or Path MTU Discovery wouldn't have a reputation of being next
On Aug 27, 2013, at 07:33 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:34:57 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
>> That's a lot of questions he didn't ask.
>
> This isn't your first rodeo. You should know by now that the question
> actually asked, the question *meant* to be asked, and the qu
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Christopher Palmer
wrote:
> What is the probability that a random path between two Internet
> hosts will traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on
> fragmented IPv4 packets?
Hi Christopher,
I think there might be three rather different questions here:
On 8/27/2013 10:04 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
>> On (2013-08-27 10:45 +0200), Emile Aben wrote:
>>
224 vantage points, 10 failed.
>>>
>>> 48 byte ping:42 out of 3406 vantage points fail (1.0%)
>>> 1473 byte ping: 180 out of 3540 vantage poi
And then you have other issues like networks that arbitrarily set DF on all
packets passing through them. That burnt a good three days of my life back
in the day.
-Blake
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:34:57 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> > That's a lot of question
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:34:57 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> That's a lot of questions he didn't ask.
This isn't your first rodeo. You should know by now that the question
actually asked, the question *meant* to be asked, and the question that
actually needed answering are often 3 different things.
>
On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2013-08-27 10:45 +0200), Emile Aben wrote:
>
>>> 224 vantage points, 10 failed.
>>
>> 48 byte ping:42 out of 3406 vantage points fail (1.0%)
>> 1473 byte ping: 180 out of 3540 vantage points fail (5.1%)
>
> Nice, it's starting to almost
On (2013-08-27 10:45 +0200), Emile Aben wrote:
> > 224 vantage points, 10 failed.
>
> 48 byte ping:42 out of 3406 vantage points fail (1.0%)
> 1473 byte ping: 180 out of 3540 vantage points fail (5.1%)
Nice, it's starting to almost sound like data rather than anecdote, both
tests implicate 4
Christopher Palmer wrote:
>
> What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts
> will traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented
> IPv4 packets?
This question is important for large EDNS packets so you'll find some
recent
Christopher Palmer wrote:
>
> What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts
> will traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented
> IPv4 packets?
This question is important for large EDNS packets so you'll find some
recent practical investigations from th
On 27/08/2013 08:55, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2013-08-27 00:01 +), Christopher Palmer wrote:
>
>> If anyone has any data or anecdotes, please feel free to send an off-list
>> email or whatever.
>
> [y...@ytti.fi ~]% ssh ring ring-all -t90 ping -s 1473 -c2 -w3 ip.fi|pastebinit
> http://p.ip.fi
On Aug 26, 2013, at 22:02 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:01:45 -, Christopher Palmer said:
>> What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts will
>> traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented IPv4
>> packets?
>
> THe fa
On (2013-08-27 00:01 +), Christopher Palmer wrote:
> If anyone has any data or anecdotes, please feel free to send an off-list
> email or whatever.
[y...@ytti.fi ~]% ssh ring ring-all -t90 ping -s 1473 -c2 -w3 ip.fi|pastebinit
http://p.ip.fi/KA7N
[ytti@sci ~]% curl -s http://p.ip.fi/KA7N|g
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:01:45 -, Christopher Palmer said:
> What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts will
> traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented IPv4 packets?
THe fact you're posting indicates that you already know the practical
answer: "
I am trolling for information/community wisdom.
What is the probability that a random path between two Internet hosts will
traverse a middlebox that drops or otherwise barfs on fragmented IPv4 packets?
If anyone has any data or anecdotes, please feel free to send an off-list email
or whatever.
34 matches
Mail list logo
