Severe Response Degradation

Andrew Brown writes:

Daniel Senie writes:
>Considering the large chunk of 24/8 they have, I can't imagine why they
>had to use RFC 1918 addresses throughout their infrastructure. When I
>raised issues about this (just after getting a T1 to their network),
>they had no answers other than that since they chose an MTU of 1500
>bytes for all their links, they didn't think path MTU discovery would be
>an issue.

well then, they're obviously clueless.

Hasn't this come up here before? I'm too lazy to go check the
archive, but I seem to remember a discussion of this topic. IIRC,
the reason/excuse given (lame or not) was that they use equipment
that does not deal well/at all with CIDR or VLSM or somesuch. Or
am I thinking of someone else?

Not that I recall it being a widely accepted reason here. :slight_smile:

--Jeff

ObRandy: Cynical response regarding people simply complaining
         about that which they do not fully understand omitted.

Jeff Aitken wrote:

Andrew Brown writes:
> Daniel Senie writes:
> >Considering the large chunk of 24/8 they have, I can't imagine why they
> >had to use RFC 1918 addresses throughout their infrastructure. When I
> >raised issues about this (just after getting a T1 to their network),
> >they had no answers other than that since they chose an MTU of 1500
> >bytes for all their links, they didn't think path MTU discovery would be
> >an issue.
>
> well then, they're obviously clueless.

Hasn't this come up here before? I'm too lazy to go check the
archive, but I seem to remember a discussion of this topic. IIRC,
the reason/excuse given (lame or not) was that they use equipment
that does not deal well/at all with CIDR or VLSM or somesuch. Or
am I thinking of someone else?

Well, all of their gear is Cisco. Last I checked, I think Cisco was OK
with CIDR and VLSM, and even unnumbered links.

As for the cluelessness statements, my take is that they've got some
very clueful people, and some very clueless people. They've also got the
inertia of a company many times their size. Perhaps that's appropriate,
though, as they are now owned, at least in part, by AT&T (via the TCI
deal).

> well then, they're obviously clueless.

Hasn't this come up here before? I'm too lazy to go check the
archive, but I seem to remember a discussion of this topic. IIRC,
the reason/excuse given (lame or not) was that they use equipment
that does not deal well/at all with CIDR or VLSM or somesuch. Or
am I thinking of someone else?

Well, all of their gear is Cisco. Last I checked, I think Cisco was OK
with CIDR and VLSM, and even unnumbered links.

perhaps they need to be told about "ip classless"?

As for the cluelessness statements, my take is that they've got some
very clueful people, and some very clueless people. They've also got the
inertia of a company many times their size. Perhaps that's appropriate,
though, as they are now owned, at least in part, by AT&T (via the TCI
deal).

no offense to the clueful then. the clueless won't notice. :slight_smile:

Anybody out there using Torrent routers?

D.