> A member of Microsoft's GNS network escalations team saw my postings on
> NANOG about this issue and took offense at my use of this forum to raise
> this issue with them, and criticized me as being unprofessional and
> lacking in business acumen.
they try that intimidation every time a vulner
On 6 mei 2008, at 23:29, Nathan Anderson/FSR wrote:
> Now, although that makes sense, in order to avoid issues like the
> one we
> are facing with Microsoft, would it not make _more_ sense for the
> stack
> to look at the PMTU cache first, and then adjust its own MSS just for
> connections to
On 6 mei 2008, at 23:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> A more common approach is to rewrite the MSS option in all TCP SYNs
>> with a smaller value so there won't be TCP segments large enough to
>> trigger the problem. AFAIK, all boxes that do PPPoE do this.
> And just the other day, you were saying
Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> Interestingly, Windows XP, Sp3, released today, describes changes in
> PMTUD behavior.
>
> Black Hole Router detection is now on by default:
As I pointed out in my post earlier today timestamped at 2:29PM, I was
using an XP SP3 host to perform my tests with, and it made
All,
A member of Microsoft's GNS network escalations team saw my postings on
NANOG about this issue and took offense at my use of this forum to raise
this issue with them, and criticized me as being unprofessional and
lacking in business acumen.
Therefore, I would like to publicly apologize fo
On May 6, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> Interestingly, Windows XP, Sp3, released today, describes changes in
> PMTUD behavior.
>
> Black Hole Router detection is now on by default:
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/7/687484ed-8174-496d-8db9-f02
> b40c12982/Overview%20of%
Interestingly, Windows XP, Sp3, released today, describes changes in
PMTUD behavior.
Black Hole Router detection is now on by default:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/7/687484ed-8174-496d-8db9-f02
b40c12982/Overview%20of%20Windows%20XP%20Service%20Pack%203.pdf
> -Original Messag
`
> Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 14:29:03 -0700
> From: Nathan Anderson/FSR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [NANOG] Microsoft.com PMTUD black hole?
>
>
> Now, although that makes sense, in order to avoid issues like the one we
> are facing with Microsoft, would it not make _more_ sense for the stack
Nathan Anderson/FSR wrote:
[...]
> connections to that one host? Maybe even send out an MTU - 40 ICMP
:s/40/sized. Brain fart.
--
Nathan Anderson
First Step Internet, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.na
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> A more common approach is to rewrite the MSS option in all TCP SYNs
[snip]
Yeah, we do this now, but the software that we have been using for PPPoE
termination as well as for a huge portion of our clients (MikroTik
RouterOS) doesn't do it correctly in my estimat
Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> I used to see it a lot when hosting on windows was popular and people
> realised they needed a firewall or decided to add a load balancer
> but broke PMTUD by leaving it enabled on the servers.
Yeah, but this is Microsoft's OWN server farm we are talking about here,
On 6 mei 2008, at 21:58, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>> Has anyone else here seen problems with microsoft/msn/hotmail/
>> live.com
>> sites not performing PMTUD correctly?
> I used to see it a lot when hosting on windows was popular and people
> realised they needed a firewall or decided to add a
> Has anyone else here seen problems with microsoft/msn/hotmail/live.com
> sites not performing PMTUD correctly?
I used to see it a lot when hosting on windows was popular and people
realised they needed a firewall or decided to add a load balancer
but broke PMTUD by leaving it enabled on the ser
Hello,
Has anyone else here seen problems with microsoft/msn/hotmail/live.com
sites not performing PMTUD correctly? We have, for a while now, had
people on our network complain of poor microsoft.com reachability, and
discovered we can work around the issue by changing MSS on all TCP SYN
as th
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
> This stuff about customers and things sounds too hard.
>
> Steve, have you actually had to do anycast without having control of
> the routing hop in front of your service providing hosts, or is this
> getting unnecessarily complicated? I'd imagine that the
15 matches
Mail list logo
