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

From: Steven M. Bellovin (no email)
Date: Sun May 06 2007 - 20:47:23 EDT

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

    On Sun, 06 May 2007 20:27:20 -0400
    Joe Maimon <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > Lincoln Dale wrote:
    >
    > >>traceroute/tcptraceroute show packet loss and MUCH higher rtt than
    > >>the corresponding direct pings on the reported hop entries.
    > >>
    > >>Is this some sort of massaging or plain just "faking it"? Or is such
    > >>things merely net-urban myth?
    > > > > 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.
    >
    Right, but from what you posted you didn't send 1500-byte packets. My
    reaction was the same as Lincoln's -- it smells like a Path MTU
    problem. To repeat -- ping and traceroute RTT from intermediate nodes
    is at best advisory, especially on timing.

    I should add -- DSL lines often use PPPoE, which in turn cuts the
    effective MTU available for user packets. If the PMTUD ICMP packets
    don't get through -- and they often don't, because of misconfigured
    firewalls -- you're likely to see problems like this.

                    --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb


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





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD