[167103] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Europe-to-US congestion and packet loss on he.net network,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Seastrom)
Sun Dec 1 07:28:38 2013
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
From: Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 07:27:42 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=onvwhbkMqQ8oDcz-VXO+yC7zhWEaYHAeYMO4P0w+66kg@mail.gmail.com> (Matthew
Petach's message of "Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:19:49 -0800")
Cc: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> writes:
> Using a 1/10th of a second interval is rather anti-social.
> I know we rate-limit ICMP traffic down, and such a
> short interval would be detected as attack traffic,
> and treated as such.
This should be obvious to everyone here but just in case, there's also
a huge difference between hammering the control plane of every router
along the path due to TTL expiration (mtr) and trying to smoke out
intermittent performance problems between end points with a few
hundred packets/second of various sizes of icmp or udp *between those
end points*. Folks should expect the former to be rate limited - a
reasonable control plane policing policy is not optional these days.
-r
