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

From: Min (no email)
Date: Mon May 07 2007 - 21:15:29 EDT

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

    After all the discussion, the difference of last hop of the trace
    (from original email)
    > 15 89.1.148.230.dynamic.barak-online.net (89.1.148.230) 251.923 ms
    256.817 ms *
    And the ping result
    > 64 bytes from 89.1.148.230: icmp_seq=6 ttl=240 time=190 ms
    is still quite interesting. I assumed the last hop is the cisco 871
    (IP=89.1.148.230).
    It will be good to know what cause the difference if you have full
    controll of the 871.

    Min

    On 5/7/07, Lincoln Dale <> wrote:
    >
    > > Lower than 1500 mtu always requires some kind of hack in real life.
    > >
    > > That would be the adjust-mss which is the hack-of-choice
    >
    > note that using 'adjust-mss' only adjusts the MSS for TCP.
    > it won't do much good for already-encapsulated IPSec traffic with protocol 47
    > or tunneled over UDP...
    >
    >
    >
    > cheers,
    >
    > lincoln.
    >
    >


  • 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