North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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

  • From: Joe Shen
  • Date: Mon May 07 03:22:09 2007
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.sg; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=fKzmIYj5T/h0dGquqbDTcUpjHqXOcK+y8SA4ZDp7NHsaj59hj4ZsYAHCCw9kvbeM5BSTOqFHgxfpORRNl887UksdjSmRplzot4b1mthP7HMAI23W+4WUcP9lDsP89beIf66Qi98EbRHgdgX3HTJvm83PSFEN77nfFZvaQLAxMyo=;
I agree with Dale. The problem should be with e2e TCP
performance. 

Maybe there is misconfigured firewall which block SYN
or ACK packet. Or, packet larger than 128B is dropped.

As you can find in your data, ping and traceroute show
different response speed. 

Maybe you could try layer4 traceroute, and try packet
size bigger than 1000Byte. It will show you where the
problem may exist. 

Joe



ICMP or traceroute usually use small packet. 

--- Joe Maimon <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln Dale wrote:
> 
> >>traceroute/tcptraceroute show packet loss and MUCH
> higher rtt than the
> >>corresponding direct pings on the reported hop
> entries.
> >>
> >>Is this some sort of massaging or plain just
> "faking it"? Or is such
> >>things merely net-urban myth?
> > 
> > 
> > the vast majority of routers on the internet
> respond very differently to
> > traffic 'directed at them' as opposed to traffic
> 'routed through them'.
> 
> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> I did include icmp echo directly to each hop as a
> comparison.
> 
> 
> 



      
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Singapore Answers 
Real people. Real questions. Real answers. Share what you know at http://answers.yahoo.com.sg