RE: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

Saku Ytti wrote: > IXP peeps, why are you not offering high MTU VLAN option? > From my point of view, this is biggest reason why we today > generally don't have higher end-to-end MTU. > I know that some IXPs do, eg. NetNOD but generally it's > not offered even though many users would opt to use

RE: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

> No, I doubt it will change. The CRC algorithm used in Ethernet is > already strained by the 1500-byte-plus payload size. 802.3 > won't extend > to any larger size without running a significant risk of the CRC > algorithm failing. I believe this has already been debunked. > From a pr

Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks

Last post for me on this thread... Dirty Networking 101 So the other morning I found a contact for a company who'll for now remain unamed, this contact is on this group...Sent them yet another message (3 this week): To whom it may concern, One of my servers has been heavily under attack for th

Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:12:19PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote: > If they're properly SWIPed why punish the ISP for networks they don't even "punish"? Since when is it "punishment" to refuse to extend a privilege that's been repeatedly and systematically abused? (You have of course, absolutely no r

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 30-Mar-07 -to- 12-Apr-07 (14 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS4637 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS912133665 3.0% 33.2 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 2 - AS17974 27902 2

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Apr 13 21:50:00 2007 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report. Recent Table Hist

Anyone around from Sprint's e-mail administration?

Please contact me off-list. Thanks, Drew

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:22:49 +0300, Saku Ytti said: > > On (2007-04-12 20:00 -0700), Stephen Satchell wrote: > > > From a practical side, the cost of developing, qualifying, and selling > > new chipsets to handle jumbo packets would jack up the cost of inside > > equipment. What is the paybac

RE: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

I don't think it matters that everything can use jumbograms or that every single device on the Internet supports them. Heck, I still know networks with kit that does not support VLSM! What would be good is if when a jumbogram capable path on the Internet exists, jumbograms can be used. This

RE: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Leigh Porter wrote: What would be good is if when a jumbogram capable path on the Internet exists, jumbograms can be used. Yes, and it would be good if PMTUD worked, and ECN, oh and large UDP-packets for DNS, and BCP38, and... and... and. The internet is a very diverse

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

On 4/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For that matter, what releases of Windows support setting a 9K MTU? That's probably the *real* uptake limiter. Most, if not all. I have an XP box that has a GigE with 9k MTU. -- -Steve

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007, Steve Meuse wrote: > On 4/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >For that matter, what releases of Windows support setting a 9K > >MTU? That's > >probably the *real* uptake limiter. > > Most, if not all. I have an XP box that has a GigE with 9k MTU.

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

Thus spake "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The internet is a very diverse and complicated beast and if end systems can properly detect PMTU by doing discovery of this, it might work. ... Make sure they can properly detect PMTU by use of nothing more than "is this packet size getting th

Re: AOL Postmaster?

Anybody from AOL on this list? Could you please send me an email offlist? I need some help. Have you pursued every avenue of contact listed at: ? I've found them to be GENERALLY pretty responsive on those channels, as have many others. --chuck

RE: AOL Postmaster?

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > >Anybody from AOL on this list? Could you please send me an email > >offlist? I need some help. > > Have you pursued every avenue of contact listed at: > ? > > I've found them to be GENERALLY pretty r

RE: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:32 AM To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet >PMTU Black Hole Detection wo

RE: AOL Postmaster?

I'm still getting feedback on netblocks we haven't been associated with in several years and I've tried about 20 times to get them to stop it but cannot. If you call they just tell you to email, if you email you get nowhere. David Some general, useful NANOG collected wisdom: "It is so easy

Re: DHCPv6, was: Re: IPv6 Finally gets off the ground

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:11:54AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > I have a Cisco 2500 with software from 1999 and a Windows XP box with > software from 2001, both supporting IPv6, sitting here... I didn't > get my first Mac until 2002, but that one supported IPv6 at that > point, too.

Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > Since when is it "punishment" to refuse to extend a privilege that's been > repeatedly and systematically abused? It IS punishment if it's in response to some sort of undesired behavior, but it probably isn't UNJUSTIFIED punishment. -- Steve Sobol,

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

Thus spake "Lasher, Donn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PMTU Black Hole Detection works well in my experience, but unfortunately MS doesn't turn it on by default, which is where all of the L2VPN with <1500 MTU issues come from; turn BHD on and the problems just go away... (And, as others have noted, th

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

Ah, large MTUs. Like many other "academic" backbones, we implemented large (9192 bytes) MTUs on our backbone and 9000 bytes on some hosts. See [1] for an illustration. Here are *my* current thoughts on increasing the Internet MTU beyond its current value, 1500. (On the topic, see also [2] - a w

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

I agree with many of your thoughts. This is essentially the same discussion we had upgrading from the 576 byte common MTU of the ARPANET to the 1500 byte MTU of Ethernet-based networks. Larger MTUs are a good thing, but are not a panacea. The biggest value in real practice is IMHO that th

Question on 7.0.0.0/8

Anybody know if 7.0.0.0/8 is or is not allocated to DoD? The data at IANA and ARIN is kind-of confusing... --- 7.1.1.0/24 ## AS1239 : SPRINTLINK : Sprint 7.0.0.0 - 7.255.255.255 ## Bogon (unallocated) ip range --

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

> As long as only a small minority of hosts supports >1500-byte MTUs, > there is no incentive for anyone important to start supporting them. > A public server supporting 9000-byte MTUs will be frustrated when it > tries to use them. The overhead (from attempted large packets that > don'

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

CYMRU has 7/8 listed as a bogon: http://www.cymru.com/Documents/bogon-dd.html Their list is more or less authoritative, so I would believe that you should never see traffic from that netblock. This is also consistent with Sprint blackholeing it as a bogon in your original post. That s