RE: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec

From: Lincoln Dale (no email)
Date: Sun May 06 2007 - 20:43:53 EDT

  • Next message: Steven M. Bellovin: "Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"

    > > the vast majority of routers on the internet respond very differently to
    > > traffic 'directed at them' as opposed to traffic 'routed through them'.
    >
    > Thanks for your reply.
    >
    > I did include icmp echo directly to each hop as a comparison.

    i guess what i'm saying is that you can't read much from the backscatter of
    what a either:
     - ping of each hop
     - eliciting a response from each hop (as traceroute does)
    as the basis for determining much.

    you can perhaps derive SOME meaning from it, but that meaning rapidly
    diminishes when there are multiple intermediate networks involved, some of
    which you have no direct connectivity to verify problems with easily, likely
    different return path for traffic (asymmetric routing) etc.

    as i said before, if you have such terrible ssh/IPSec type performance, far
    less than you think is reasonable, then my money is on a MTU issue, and
    probably related to your DSL-based final hops.

    cheers,

    lincoln.


  • Next message: Steven M. Bellovin: "Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD