[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re[2]: ILUG on leb.net
>Maybe, but I didn't intend to touch this topic. 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.
Currently, we don't know of one single problem with the IIX - except,
as I said above, Netvision's bandwidth to it. (By the way, this last one
is being worked on this very moment; at any rate, it is Netvision's to
solve).
>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), because of
all sorts of ICMP-based attacks that have recently emerged.
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, and not
the other way around.
Sincerely,
Doron Shikmoni