Prev-20 Home Next-20 1 msg BGP issues qwest in Burbank, CA 1 msg Looking for Yahoo-SOC contact 1 msg Cachefly Contact 2 msg auth*.ns.uu.net 1 msg auth00/auth100.ns.uu.net down ? 3 msg PCH BGP Archive down? 1 msg Looking for Flickr contacts 2 msg Charter - Southern Oregon routing issues 1 msg Google Contact 1 msg Bob Crooks/SaskTel/CA is out of the office. Microsoft.com PMTUD black hole? \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (6 May 2008) . \ Brandon Butterworth (6 May 2008) . . \ Iljitsch van Beijnum (6 May 2008) . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (6 May 2008) . . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (6 May 2008) . . . . \ Iljitsch van Beijnum (7 May 2008) . . . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . . \ Bjørn Mork (7 May 2008) . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (6 May 2008) . \ Robert Bonomi (6 May 2008) . . \ Tomas L. Byrnes (7 May 2008) . . . \ Marshall Eubanks (7 May 2008) . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . . \ Randy Bush (7 May 2008) . . . \ Glen Turner (7 May 2008) . . . . \ Mark Newton (7 May 2008) . . . . \ Patrick Giagnocavo (7 May 2008) . . . \ Rich Kulawiec (7 May 2008) . . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . . . . \ Michael Sinatra (7 May 2008) . . . . . . \ Iljitsch van Beijnum (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . \ Tomas L. Byrnes (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . . . \ Iljitsch van Beijnum (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . . . \ Tomas L. Byrnes (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . . . . \ Iljitsch van Beijnum (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . \ Tomas L. Byrnes (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . \ Tomas L. Byrnes (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . . . . . . \ Bjørn Mork (8 May 2008) . . . . . . . . \ Joel Jaeggli (8 May 2008) . . . . . . . . . \ Iljitsch van Beijnum (8 May 2008) . . . . . . . . . . \ Smith, Donald (8 May 2008) . . . . . . \ Hank Nussbacher (8 May 2008) . . . . . \ Deepak Jain (7 May 2008) . . . . . . \ SML (7 May 2008) . . . . . . \ Tony Finch (8 May 2008) . . . . . . . \ Blaine Christian (8 May 2008) . . \ Stephen Sprunk (7 May 2008) . \ Iljitsch van Beijnum (7 May 2008) . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . \ Tomas L. Byrnes (7 May 2008) . . . \ Nathan Anderson/FSR (7 May 2008) . . . \ Matthew Petach (12 May 2008) . \ Michael Sinatra (7 May 2008) . \ Scott Weeks (8 May 2008) . \ Janet Sullivan (8 May 2008) . . \ Niels Bakker (8 May 2008) 4 msg Strange network behaviour 1 msg Was Burma off the air due to the Cyclone ? 17 msg OSPF minutia, and, technote publication venues 2 msg Deadline Extension UBICOMM 2008, September 29 -... 1 msg [Fwd: Re: outages] 2 msg outages 21 msg Did Youtube not pay their domain bill? 9 msg Introducing latency for testing? 33 msg fair warning: less than 1000 days left to IPv4 ... Prev-20 Home Next-20

Prev-Msg Prev-Thread Nanog May-2008 Next-Thread Next-Msg Subject: Re: Microsoft.com PMTUD black hole? Group: Nanog From: Tomas L. Byrnes Date: 7 May 2008 I'm not sure what the issue is here. Just about every modern firewall I've used has an option to enable PMTU on interfaces, while blocking all other ICMP. Is MS not running something manufactured in the last 10 years at their perimeter? > -----Original Message----- > From: Nathan Anderson/FSR [mailto:nathana] > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 12:39 PM > To: Valdis.Kletnieks > Cc: nanog > Subject: Re: [NANOG] Microsoft.com PMTUD black hole? > > Valdis.Kletnieks wrote: > > > The usual case where you get screwed over is when the > router trying to > > toss the ICMP FRAG NEEDED is *behind* the ICMP-munching > firewall. And > > in case (2), you still can't assume that path MTU == local MTU, > > because your local MTU is likely 1500, and the fragging > router often > > trying to stuff your 1500 byte packet down an PPPoE tunnel > that's got an MTU of 1492.... > > Yes, but my point was precisely that one OR the other side (server OR > client) is going to NOT have the ICMP-munching firewall in > between itself and the "RITM" as I have affectionately been > calling it (although it is definitely possible that there are > two ICMP-munchers on either side of the RITM). > > And case #2 is exactly what is occurring right now _anyway_: > hosts assume that path MTU == local MTU even if there is > already an active PMTU cache entry from a recent earlier > communication with the remote host. So I don't see how > making that assumption _after_ making an honest attempt at > actively determining whether or not it is actually the case > is any more broken than they way things are already being done. > > The problem is that, as I realized at the end of the message > you quoted, there are potentially multiple paths between the > same two hosts, and the path that the packet takes in one > direction is not guaranteed to be the same path that the > packet takes in the opposite direction. > > -- > Nathan Anderson > First Step Internet, LLC > nathana > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog Prev-Msg Prev-Thread Nanog May-2008 Next-Thread Next-Msg

© 2004-2008 readlist.com