routing issue for verizon dsl customers in western massachusetts

bgold at simons-rock.edu bgold at simons-rock.edu
Fri Sep 16 06:51:44 CDT 2011


> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 20:52 UTC, Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Steve Bohrer <skbohrer at simons-rock.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> Traceroutes from Brian's house
>>> show that for our blocked hosts, the users don't get beyond Verizon's
>>> NAT.
>>
>> I wasn't aware verizon implemented CGN already... way to be a 'first
>> mover' in this field verizon!
>
> I am betting they have not.
>
>>> FAILS:
>>> Tracing route to wilbur.simons-rock.edu [208.81.88.15]
>>> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>>>
>>>  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.10.1
>>>  2     1 ms     1 ms     1 ms  192.168.1.1
>>>  3    53 ms   104 ms   116 ms  10.14.1.1
>>>  4     *        *        *     Request timed out.
>>>  5     *        *        *     Request timed out.
>>>  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
>>>  7     *        *        *     Request timed out.
>
> Here's a trace to the same destination from a Verizon residential DSL
> on Maryland's Eastern Shore:
>
> Tracing route to wilbur.simons-rock.edu [208.81.88.15]
> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>
>   1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.201.1
>   2    25 ms    25 ms    24 ms  10.31.8.1
>   3    38 ms    99 ms    78 ms
> at-4-3-0-1712.sal-core-rtr1.verizon-gni.net [130.81.136.122]
>   4    26 ms    26 ms    26 ms
> so-0-0-0-0.sal-core-rtr2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.18.247]
>   5    94 ms    31 ms    31 ms  130.81.20.238
>   6    32 ms    32 ms    32 ms  0.ae2.BR2.IAD8.ALTER.NET [152.63.34.73]
>   7    32 ms    33 ms    31 ms  te2-3.ar6.DCA3.gblx.net [64.215.195.113]
>   8    33 ms    33 ms    32 ms  xe6-2-0-10G.scr2.WDC2.gblx.net
> [67.16.136.197]
>   9    37 ms    38 ms    38 ms  so2-2-0-10G.scr2.NYC1.gblx.net
> [67.17.95.102]
>  10    43 ms    44 ms    44 ms  pos9-0-2488M.cr2.BOS1.gblx.net
> [67.17.94.157]
>  11   244 ms   200 ms   204 ms  pos1-0-0-155M.ar1.BOS1.gblx.net
> [67.17.70.165]
>  12    50 ms    51 ms    50 ms  64.213.79.250
>  13    49 ms    50 ms    48 ms  wilbur.simons-rock.edu [208.81.88.15]
>
> 192.168.201.1 is the router behind the bridged ADSL CPE which
> terminates the customer PPPoE.  10.31.8.1 is RFC 1918, but is not a
> NAT.  I know from various "test my crappy broadband" sites that the
> only drain bramage on the provider side of the link is routine
> consumer-class port blocking (SMB networking, SQL, and of course port
> 80 so the mothe#@#$rs can charge extra for "business" with static IP
> and unblocked http).  At least https works.
>
> Looking at Brian's trace above, I can't help wondering if the client
> is 444'd, but not due to CGN/LSN.  Could both 192.168.10.1 and
> 192.168.1.1 be on-premises, with 192.168.1.1 terminating PPPoE?  The
> latencies seem to confirm.  It is possible it's only a single level of
> NAT on .1.1, with more-respectable routing by .10.1...

In my setup, 192.168.10.1 is my DD-WRT router and 192.168.1.1 is the DSL
modem. When I ran a traceroute directly from the DSL modem's web
interface, I got the following results:

1    57 ms    98 ms   129 ms  10.14.1.1
3     *        *        *     Request timed out.
5     *        *        *     Request timed out.
5     *        *        *     Request timed out.
6     *        *        *     Request timed out.

>
> Cheers,
> Dave Hart
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list