North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Strange public traceroutes return private RFC1918 addresses
On 3-feb-04, at 11:47, [email protected] wrote:
Which (as discussed previously) breaks things like Path MTU Discovery, traceroute,
You mean if they use 9000 bytes + RFC 1918 for the internal links and 1500 + real addresses for the external links there are no problems, even when people filter the RFC 1918 addresses? That would be correct in the case where this is a single organization network. But if it's a service provider network, there may be customers somewhere that connect over 1500 byte + links. (And never mind the fact that firewall admins are incredibly paranoid and also often filter RFC 1918 sources.)If RFC1918 addresses are used only on interfaces with jumbo MTUs on the order of 9000 bytes then it doesn't break PMTUD in a 1500 byte Ethernet world. And it doesn't break traceroute.
Not as much as I'd hoped. My powerbook has gigabit ethernet but it's limited to 1500 byte frames.A more important question is what will happen as we move out of the 1500 byte Ethernet world into the jumbo gigE world.
The internet has always been a network with a variable MTU size. Even today under the iron rule of ether there are many systems with MTUs that aren't 1500. And yes, obviously people will want larger MTUs. I had the opportunity to work with a couple for boxes with 10 gigabit ethernet interfaces today. Unfortunately, I was unable to squeeze more than 1.5 gbit out of them over TCP. That's 125000 packets per second at 1500 bytes, which makes no sense any which way you slice it. (And the driver did actually do 125k interrupts per second, which probably explains the poor throughput.)It's only a matter of time before end users will be running gigE networks and want to use jumbo MTUs on their Internet links.
No need. Simply always use the largest possible MTU and make sure path MTU discovery works. If you have a range of maximum MTU sizes that is pretty close (9000 and 9216 are both common) it could make sense to standardize on the lowest in the range to avoid successive PMTUD drops but apart from that there is little to be gained by over-designing.Could we all agree on a hierarchy of jumbo MTU sizes that with the largest sizes in the core and the smallest sizes at the edge? The increment in sizes should allow for a layer or two of encapsulation and peering routers should use the largest size MTU.
Oh yes: there were some calculations in other postings, which were quite misleading as they only looked at the 20 byte IP overhead. There's also TCP overhead (20 bytes), often a timestamp option (12 bytes) and of course the ethernet overhead which is considerable: 8 byte preamble, 14 byte header, 4 byte FCS and an inter frame gap that is equivalent to 12 bytes. So a 1500 byte IP packet takes up 1538 bytes on the wire while it only has a 1460 byte payload (94.9% efficiency). A 9000 byte IP packet takes up 9038 bytes and delivers a 8960 byte payload (99.1%). 1520 bytes in a single packet would be 95% efficiency but fragmenting this packet would create a new IP packet with a 24 byte payload for a total of 44 bytes which is padded to 46 because of the ethernet minimum packet size, for a total bandwidth use on the wire of 1618 bytes, making for an efficiency rating of 91.5%. (Fragmenting 1520 in 1496 and 44 is pretty stupid by the way, 768 and 772 would be much better, thinking of the reasons why is left as an exercise for the reader.)