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

From: Lincoln Dale (no email)
Date: Sun May 06 2007 - 22:37:23 EDT

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

    > > 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.
    >
    > When the cards consistently fall in certain patterns, you can actually
    > read them quite easily.
    >
    > The standard control plane arguments dont apply when the pattern holds
    > all the way through to equipment under your {remote-}control.

    it most certainly does. lets use an example network of:

            F
            |
    A---B---C---D---E
            |
            G

    you are looking at ICMP/traceroute responses through sending traffic to/from A
    & E.

    for all you know, there may be an ICMP DDoS attack going on from F-C or from
    G-C. the router 'C' is perfectly entitled to rate-limit the # of icmp
    responses it sends per second, and due to said traffic from F & G may be doing
    so.

    this would render your reading of the tea leaves of what A and E are seeing of
    C.

    this diagram is incredibly simplistic. for the "greater internet", we could
    add perhaps 50x connections at each of B, C & D, not to mention the path you
    posted showed upwards of a dozen hops - so more realistically there could be 4
    or 5 order of magnitude more devices causing traffic in the path.

    > In this specific instance, I find interesting the disparity of results
    > between each hop ICMP echo and traceroute time exceeded processing, all
    > the way up to the final hop.
    >
    > I wouldnt care if the application protocols rode well, but they dont
    > seem to.

    while you can paint a partial picture from elicited icmp responses, it
    certainly doesn't give you the full canvas.

    you've only tested traffic from A to E. what about A to F where those are
    ENDPOINTS and not ROUTERS? e.g. try a long-lived HTTP/FTP stream & see what
    you get.

    cheers,

    lincoln.


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





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD