[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[4]: ILUG on leb.net
Doron Shikmoni <doron@isoc.org.il> wrote:
> >I just pointed out that IIX is
> >something having a lot to be improved in.
>
> I'm sure you have information and facts to substantiate this assertion
> (otherwise you would not have posted it, would you).
>
> Netvision's bandwidth to the IIX set aside, - do you have *one* point
> that will help us improve the IIX? One will do - no need for a "lot".
> We are always happy and willing to learn. You sound as if you are
> well informed.
I didn't say "_I_ know a lot that IIX stuff has to learn". If you consider
hiring me as a consultant, we can discuss this possibility via private emails.
As to the facts: compiling facts in a statistically reliable way (in respect to
the present discussion) might be quite time-consuming task, and my free time is
quite limited. Not to mention an access to IIX routers' admin data may be needed
- which I evidently don't have. I express here my own feeling towards the
quality of the IIX services - being merely a _user_ of the latters. And from
this my very own experience, the reliability of IIX connections is not very good
- it's not that rarely an .il domain is more difficult to reach (from Israel!)
than an US site. As well, I've seen not once and not twice traceroutes between
two .il domains going through US routers - while both sites' ISPs were connected
to IIX.
But _you_ - you definitely have the facts needed to persuade me in the good
quality of IIX. I'd like to see reliable comparison between quality of national
network interconnectivity of Israel and XXX (= US or any West Europe country).
If you can prove that both are more or less the same, I agree to beg your (or
anyone else's) pardon. Otherwise, you may want to talk to network specialists
from XXX - they probably have the valuable ideas you're looking for.
> >I don't allow traceroute requests from UNTRUSTED hosts. Try telnet'ing to
> port
> >80 instead.
>
> Yes. Eli, the traceroute's you posted indicate that traceroute
> to the Weizmann host doesn't complete, from any direction. This,
> of course, has nothing to do with IIX (or the ISP for that matter).
> Many places today elect to block traceroute (actually, they block
> ICMP altogether, breaking ICMP and PING en route)
This, BTW, I'd like to understand. I've seen statements here and there that
disabling ICMP completely is a Wrong Thing. But why? (Not on routers, which is
quite clear, but end-point sites).
> Please remember that the last response line you see on a traceroute
> indicate the last location from which a good reply *did* come back
> fine. The fact that the egress IIX link was the last one to respond,
> should lead you to think that the problem is *not* there,
How can one know? Aquanet-IIX.iix.net.il indeed responds, but where is the
garantee that the second interface is up or the physical media between it and
Aquanet's router is OK (which can be, of course, both IIX's and Aquanet's
fault)?
Regards,
Evgeny
--
____________________________________________________________
/ Evgeny Stambulchik <fnevgeny@plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il> \
/ Plasma Laboratory, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel \ \
| Phone : (972)8-934-3610 == | == FAX : (972)8-934-3491 | |
| URL : http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/~fnevgeny/ | |
| Finger for PGP key >=====================================+ |
|______________________________________________________________|