packet loss question

Mon Jul 11 01:26:26 UTC 2016

In message <25577FE1-6366-4D6D-B82E-A779193CB458 at beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writ
es:
> Philip,
>
> Quite often slow Web page loading and email transport -- termed an
> application-layer problem because basic transport seems unaffected -- is
> due to DNS problems, particularly reverse DNS for the IP addresses
> originating your Web queries. If you have non-existent or intermittent
> IN-ADDR entries for those IPs, the remote Web servers can be timing out
> if they have older configurations that, for example, do DNS lookups in
> order to log HTTP requests and block on completion, resulting in
> timeouts. Use "nslookup x.x.x.x" command line queries (nslookup is on
> Windows, Mac and UNIX/Linux) to see if you can resolve the public IP
> addresses your users original queries from. You can find those addresses
> by visiting http://whatismyip.com from a problem desktop.
>
> A second common cause of app-specific throughput problems, particularly
> where email is involved, is failed MTU discovery. The standard Internet
> MTU is 1500 bytes, but sometimes a router misconfiguration or change in
> encapsulation type along the path through your ISP lowers that to, say,
> 1492 or 1486 bytes (MTU is in increments of 8). The result is that
> whenever your web or email client sends a maximum MTU packet, the packet
> is dropped, resulting in connection impairment. Most HTTP and Email
> packets are not max-MTU in size, so you get very uneven performance
> simulating network congestion.

The Internet Standard MTU's are 68 octets for IPv4 (RFC 791) and
1280 octets for IPv6 (RFC 2460).

Every size greater than those is subject to negotiation.  Now most
paths pass packets greater than those values.  Ethernet is very
common and passes 1500.

Encapsulated / translate traffic is also very common and has MTUs
< 1500 and affects BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 data streams and will become
more so as we move from dual stack to IPv6 only where IPv4 is a
service running on top of IPv6.

> You can force the MTU to a lower number at your border to test this. You
> typically do this at your firewall; it's a setting on the WAN interface
> config. Temporarily lower that value dramatically to something like 1440
> and see if your problem goes away. If it does, you may need to
> permanently reduce MTU, so you should try other divisible-by-8 values --
> 1492, 1486, 1478, etc -- until you find the largest one that works. I
> commonly see this when a customer switches ISPs from DSL to Cable. Cable
> providers are fond of stealing 8 or 16 bytes for their CMT headers in a
> way that breaks MTU discovery.
>
> A third frequent application-layer throughout debillitator is IPv6
> misconfiguration. If you support IPv6 for your end users, they may be
> getting directed to IPv6 web or mail servers (which are generally
> preferred via DNS) but thwarted by IPv6 transport issues, which could be
> as simple as routing or MTU, or as complex as an invisible 6-over-4 NAT
> somewhere (such as a your upstream ISP). These problems generally require
> an IPv6-competent network engineer to resolve, but you can test by
> disabling IPv6 on your network (which also requires an IPv6-competent
> network engineer :)
>
> I'm always amazed at how often these three causes are at the root of
> performance problems. So it's worth investigating each.
>
>  -mel beckman
>
> > On Jul 8, 2016, at 6:02 AM, Phillip Lynn <phillip.lynn at netwolves.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/07/2016 03:52 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
> >> No offence, but i swear that mtr should come with a license to use it.
> I get more
> >> questions from people accusing us of network issues with mtr in hand...
> >>
> >> You shoudlnt care that there's 80% packet loss in the middle of your
> route, unless
> >> you have actual traffic to lag-101.ear3.miami2.level3.net. I suspect
> you dont.
> >> (If you did, you'd have mtr'd to it directly of course.)
> >>
> >> As for your second trace, the sudden jump from 0% on 2nd last hop to
> 100% last
> >> hop packetloss seems like firewalling to me. (long discussion about the
> >> probabilities of getting 5 0%pl hops in a row and 100% on an
> unfirewalled
> >> endpoint elided. TL;DR: use more packets in your test -i 0.1 -c 100
> thanks).
> >>
> >> If you have 0% packetloss to your target endpoint, is there an issue
> here?
> >> What caused you to mtr?  0% pl is pretty good. You could play quake 1.0
> >> through that pl and ping time. The +20ms ATL<>CHI jump in the route
> you'd have
> >> to take up with einstein/bill nye/$deity.
> >>
> >> For the 2nd trace, the 1st hop is your latency issue (plus the big
> jump from
> >> miami<>ashburn, again the limit is c.)
> >>
> >> ICMP is allowed to be dropped by intervening routers. Someone will
> quote an RFC
> >> at us shortly.
> >>
> >> Mtr without a return route is not that useful in figuring out
> packetloss
> >> because pl requires the packet make it there and back. Pl could be
> anywhere on
> >> the return route, which is probably not symmetrical. The internet
> stopped
> >> being symetrical about 20+ years ago (if it ever even loosely was), so
> get a friend
> >> to send you an mtr to your ip from the farside.
> >>
> >> (I remember a project long ago, some cgi-bin (yeah that long ago) that
> was
> >> basically a full-path forward+reverse traceroute you could hit on a
> selected
> >> server at the provider.  Rather handy. not sure if its still a thing,
> or what it was
> >> called.)
> >>
> >> /kc
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:17:40PM -0400, Phillip Lynn said:
> >>   >Hi all,
> >>   >
> >>   >  I am writing because I do not understand what is happening.  I
> ran mtr
> >>   >against our email server and www.teco.comand below are the results.
>  I am
> >>   >not a network engineer so I am at a loss.  I think what I am seeing
> is
> >>   >maybe a hand off issue, between Frontier and Level3Miami2. If I am
> correct
> >>   >then what can I do?
> >>   >
> >>   >  My system is running Centos 6.5 Linux.
> >>   >
> >>   >Thanks,
> >>   >
> >>   >Phillip
> >>   >
> >>   >
> >>   >
> >>   >(! 1011)-> sudo mtr -r netwolves.securence.com
> >>   >HOST: xxxxx at netwolves.comLoss%   Snt   Last   Avg Best  Wrst StDev
> >>   >  1. 172.24.109.1                  0.0%    10    0.6 0.6 0.6   0.7
>  0.0
> >>   >  2. lo0-100.TAMPFL-VFTTP-322.gni  0.0%    10    3.2 2.0 1.0   4.3
>  1.2
> >>   >  3. 172.99.44.214                 0.0%    10    4.0 4.9 2.3   6.9
>  1.5
> >>   >  4. ae8---0.scr02.mias.fl.fronti  0.0%    10    9.3 9.1 7.5   9.8
>  1.0
> >>   >  5. ae1---0.cbr01.mias.fl.fronti  0.0%    10    8.9   9.1   7.6
> 9.7 0.7
> >>   >  6. lag-101.ear3.Miami2.Level3.n 80.0%    10    9.0   8.9   8.8
> 9.0 0.1
> >>   >  7. 10ge9-14.core1.mia1.he.net    0.0%    10   14.3 13.0 7.6  18.1
>   4.3
> >>   >  8. 10ge1-1.core1.atl1.he.net     0.0%    10   25.6  33.2 22.4
> 99.7  23.6
> >>   >  9. 10ge10-4.core1.chi1.he.net    0.0%    10   45.6  51.8 45.5
> 82.7  12.5
> >>   > 10. 100ge14-2.core1.msp1.he.net   0.0%    10   53.6  63.9 53.6
> 125.2  21.8
> >>   > 11. t4-2-usi-cr02-mpls-usinterne  0.0%    10   53.2  73.1 53.2
> 225.6  54.0
> >>   > 12. v102.usi-cr04-mtka.usinterne  0.0%    10   53.2  53.9 53.2
> 55.3   0.6
> >>   > 13. netwolves.securence.com       0.0%    10   53.4  53.9 53.4
> 55.4   0.7
> >>   >
> >>   >(! 1014)-> sudo mtr -r www.teco.com
> >>   >HOST: xxxxx at netwolves.comLoss%   Snt   Last   Avg Best  Wrst StDev
> >>   >  1. 172.24.109.1                  0.0%    10    0.6 0.6 0.6   0.7
>  0.0
> >>   >  2. lo0-100.TAMPFL-VFTTP-322.gni  0.0%    10  104.8 81.4 1.1 113.2
>  43.2
> >>   >  3. 172.99.47.198                 0.0%    10  115.0 77.8 2.9 115.0
>  40.2
> >>   >  4. ae7---0.scr01.mias.fl.fronti  0.0%    10  111.1 80.2 8.5 113.5
>  41.3
> >>   >  5. ae0---0.cbr01.mias.fl.fronti  0.0%    10  105.9  82.2   7.6
> 115.4 33.8
> >>   >  6. lag-101.ear3.Miami2.Level3.n 70.0%    10  116.1  80.2   8.5
> 116.1 62.0
> >>   >  7. NTT-level3-80G.Miami.Level3.  0.0%    10  110.0 81.5 9.0 120.3
>  41.9
> >>   >  8. ae-3.r20.miamfl02.us.bb.gin.  0.0%    10  119.8  84.0 10.0
> 119.8  38.5
> >>   >  9. ae-4.r23.asbnva02.us.bb.gin. 10.0%    10  137.4 107.6 30.1
> 142.7  45.7
> >>   > 10. ae-2.r05.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.  0.0%    10  135.0 109.9 36.6
> 140.0  39.1
> >>   > 11. xe-0-9-0-8.r05.asbnva02.us.c  0.0%    10  147.5 125.6 49.4
> 165.5  41.1
> >>   > 12. 24.52.112.21                  0.0%    10  158.6 124.0 49.6
> 161.3  41.5
> >>   > 13. 24.52.112.42                  0.0%    10  151.0 127.7 52.2
> 159.0  41.2
> >>   > 14. ???                          100.0    10    0.0 0.0 0.0   0.0
>  0.0
> >>   >
> >>   >--
> >>   >Phillip Lynn
> >>   >Software Engineer III
> >>   >NetWolves
> >>   >Phone:813-579-3214
> >>   >Fax:813-882-0209
> >>   >Email: phillip.lynn at netwolves.com
> >>   >www.netwolves.com
> >>   >
> >>
> >
> > None taken,
> >
> >  We are having issues with our email and loading some web pages. I used
> mtr to try and find if there is a possible connection issue.  I just need
> to understand what is happening , and be able to explain the output
> showing the 80% packet loss .  We are not pointing fingers, just looking
> to understand the issue better.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > Phillip Lynn
> > Software Engineer III
> > NetWolves
> > Phone:813-579-3214
> > Fax:813-882-0209
> > Email: phillip.lynn at netwolves.com
> > www.netwolves.com
> >

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org