[96383] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Mon May 7 10:40:56 2007
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:39:47 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: surfer@mauigateway.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20070507011412.92D5928@resin11.mta.everyone.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- ltd@interlink.com.au wrote:
> From: "Lincoln Dale" <ltd@interlink.com.au>
> To: "'Joe Maimon'" <jmaimon@ttec.com>
>
>>The standard control plane arguments dont apply
>>when the pattern holds all the way through to
>>equipment under your {remote-}control.
>
> :
> : it most certainly does. lets use an example
> : network of:
> : F
> : |
> :A---B---C---D---E
> : |
> : G
> :
> :
> : you are looking at ICMP/traceroute responses
> : through sending traffic to/from A & E.
> :
> :for all you know, there may be an ICMP DDoS attack
>
>
>
> What about something as simplistic as tcptraceroute?
My apologies for not making it clear that I had used that tool with the
same results at the same time on ports 80, 22 and 23. With large and
small packet sizes.
> It won't give you path MTU info, but there're other tools that can.
>
> scott
>
>
