<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Firstly define "slow". The thing about TCP is it is amazing, and you can be running over a wet piece of string, and as long as your wet piece of string delivers properly formed packets, your web pages will load. These symptoms suggest packet loss. Loading web pages is seldom helpful as a debug tool, and you'll do better with low level tools. Flood ping probably first port of call, assuming there's no QoS shenanigans.<br><br></div>Kind regards<br><br></div>Paul Wilkins<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 March 2017 at 16:55, Arash Naderpour <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:arash_mpc@parsun.com" target="_blank">arash_mpc@parsun.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Hi Pouya,</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Any layer 4 adjustment you may have in your settings? (TCP-MSS?)</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Please also describe how you have done the speed test on that EFM link, which protocol and what packet size? </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Arash </span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:15:10 +0000</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">From: Pouya Madani <</span><a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a><span style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">To: "</span><a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><span style="font-size:12.8px">" <</span><a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><span style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Subject: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Message-ID:</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> <</span><a href="mailto:CADZYfx3jiq-6g-o2%2BUSYuaukKffR9Qp62Qdb%2B4cAfDvVvEzQyw@mail.gmail.com" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">CADZYfx3jiq-6g-o2+USYuaukKffR<wbr>9Qp62Qdb+4cAfDvVvEzQyw@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a><span style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Hi everyone,</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Need thoughts on a speed issue and would appreciate if anyone might be able</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">to help as I am running out of ideas.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">I have a new ASR1002 in production to operate as LNS but services</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">authenticated are experiencing speed issues and web pages not loading</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">properly. My initial thought was the MTU size but this doesnt look to be</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">the root cause as authenticated services can ping (</span><a href="http://bbc.com/" rel="noreferrer" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">bbc.com</a><span style="font-size:12.8px"> for instance) by</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">MTU size 1464 (28bit ICMP + 8bit PPP) ok, but (bbc again for example) web</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">pages fail to load completely when browsed to. The sample service I am</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">testing with is a 20MB EFM and speed test sits around 16MB up/down. No</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">input/output errors on any of the interfaces and speed is 1000 duplex full</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">on all.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">I would appreciate if any one can suggest anything else I might be missing</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">out.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Thanks in advance.</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">-------------- next part --------------</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">URL: <</span><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/e4d4e4e5/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/e4d4e4e5/attachment-0001.<wbr>html</a><span style="font-size:12.8px">></span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">------------------------------</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:20 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ausnog-request@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog-request@lists.ausnog.<wbr>net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send AusNOG mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:ausnog-request@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog-request@lists.ausnog.ne<wbr>t</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:ausnog-owner@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog-owner@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of AusNOG digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Speed issues on ASR1k (Pouya Madani)<br>
2. Re: Speed issues on ASR1k (<a href="mailto:michael@hobl.com.au" target="_blank">michael@hobl.com.au</a>)<br>
3. Re: Speed issues on ASR1k (Nathan Brookfield)<br>
4. Re: Speed issues on ASR1k (Pouya Madani)<br>
5. Re: Speed issues on ASR1k (Pouya Madani)<br>
6. Re: Speed issues on ASR1k (Pouya Madani)<br>
7. Re: Speed issues on ASR1k (Nathan Brookfield)<br>
8. Re: Speed issues on ASR1k (Nathan Brookfield)<br>
9. Re: Speed issues on ASR1k (Pouya Madani)<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:15:10 +0000<br>
From: Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
Subject: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CADZYfx3jiq-6g-o2%2BUSYuaukKffR9Qp62Qdb%2B4cAfDvVvEzQyw@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CADZYfx3jiq-6g-o2+USYuaukKffR<wbr>9Qp62Qdb+4cAfDvVvEzQyw@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
Need thoughts on a speed issue and would appreciate if anyone might be able<br>
to help as I am running out of ideas.<br>
<br>
I have a new ASR1002 in production to operate as LNS but services<br>
authenticated are experiencing speed issues and web pages not loading<br>
properly. My initial thought was the MTU size but this doesnt look to be<br>
the root cause as authenticated services can ping (<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bbc.com</a> for instance) by<br>
MTU size 1464 (28bit ICMP + 8bit PPP) ok, but (bbc again for example) web<br>
pages fail to load completely when browsed to. The sample service I am<br>
testing with is a 20MB EFM and speed test sits around 16MB up/down. No<br>
input/output errors on any of the interfaces and speed is 1000 duplex full<br>
on all.<br>
<br>
I would appreciate if any one can suggest anything else I might be missing<br>
out.<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/e4d4e4e5/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/e4d4e4e5/attachment-0001.<wbr>html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:27:56 +1000<br>
From: <a href="mailto:michael@hobl.com.au" target="_blank">michael@hobl.com.au</a><br>
To: Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:2f514265-1097-481d-89bc-3fe8c933cefa@email.android.com" target="_blank">2f514265-1097-481d-89bc-3fe8c<wbr>933cefa@email.android.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/c137bf27/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/c137bf27/attachment-0001.<wbr>html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:31:41 +0000<br>
From: Nathan Brookfield <<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.c<wbr>om.au</a>><br>
To: Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:2FDEE421-52E5-4A8F-8B25-4040DD79121A@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">2FDEE421-52E5-4A8F-8B25-4040D<wbr>D79121A@simtronic.com.au</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Towards you upstream providers that are switching the L2TP sessions what is the maximum MTU you can ping with the DF bit sets<br>
<br>
Nathan Brookfield<br>
Chief Executive Officer<br>
<br>
Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd<br>
<a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.simtronic.com.au</a><br>
<br>
On 18 Mar 2017, at 19:16, Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a><mai<wbr>lto:<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><wbr>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
Need thoughts on a speed issue and would appreciate if anyone might be able to help as I am running out of ideas.<br>
<br>
I have a new ASR1002 in production to operate as LNS but services authenticated are experiencing speed issues and web pages not loading properly. My initial thought was the MTU size but this doesnt look to be the root cause as authenticated services can ping (<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bbc.com</a><<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bbc.com</a>> for instance) by MTU size 1464 (28bit ICMP + 8bit PPP) ok, but (bbc again for example) web pages fail to load completely when browsed to. The sample service I am testing with is a 20MB EFM and speed test sits around 16MB up/down. No input/output errors on any of the interfaces and speed is 1000 duplex full on all.<br>
<br>
I would appreciate if any one can suggest anything else I might be missing out.<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance.<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><mailto<wbr>:<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/0175a50b/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/0175a50b/attachment-0001.<wbr>html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 20:01:28 +1100<br>
From: Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Nathan Brookfield <<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.c<wbr>om.au</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CADZYfx1VO4SRcM73SAGOE%2BBqG3zrCQcdGYXyP6jrfb_Rtifrag@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CADZYfx1VO4SRcM73SAGOE+BqG3zr<wbr>CQcdGYXyP6jrfb_Rtifrag@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
ping to both sample LAC and 4.2.2.4 is at max MTU 1500 with DF bit set<br>
<br>
<br>
#ping vrf INTERNET<br>
Protocol [ip]:<br>
Target IP address: 203.219.113.35<br>
Repeat count [5]: 1<br>
Datagram size [100]:<br>
Timeout in seconds [2]:<br>
Extended commands [n]: y<br>
Ingress ping [n]:<br>
Source address or interface:<br>
Type of service [0]:<br>
Set DF bit in IP header? [no]: yes<br>
Validate reply data? [no]:<br>
Data pattern [0x0000ABCD]:<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: V<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[V]:<br>
Sweep range of sizes [n]: y<br>
Sweep min size [36]: 1450<br>
Sweep max size [18024]: 1550<br>
Sweep interval [1]:<br>
Type escape sequence to abort.<br>
Sending 101, [1450..1550]-byte ICMP Echos to 203.219.113.35, timeout is 2<br>
seconds:<br>
Packet sent with the DF bit set<br>
Reply to request 0 (2 ms) (size 1450)<br>
Reply to request 1 (1 ms) (size 1451)<br>
Reply to request 2 (2 ms) (size 1452)<br>
Reply to request 3 (2 ms) (size 1453)<br>
Reply to request 4 (1 ms) (size 1454)<br>
Reply to request 5 (1 ms) (size 1455)<br>
Reply to request 6 (2 ms) (size 1456)<br>
Reply to request 7 (1 ms) (size 1457)<br>
Reply to request 8 (1 ms) (size 1458)<br>
Reply to request 9 (2 ms) (size 1459)<br>
Reply to request 10 (1 ms) (size 1460)<br>
Reply to request 11 (1 ms) (size 1461)<br>
Reply to request 12 (2 ms) (size 1462)<br>
Reply to request 13 (1 ms) (size 1463)<br>
Reply to request 14 (1 ms) (size 1464)<br>
Reply to request 15 (2 ms) (size 1465)<br>
Reply to request 16 (1 ms) (size 1466)<br>
Reply to request 17 (1 ms) (size 1467)<br>
Reply to request 18 (2 ms) (size 1468)<br>
Reply to request 19 (2 ms) (size 1469)<br>
Reply to request 20 (1 ms) (size 1470)<br>
Reply to request 21 (1 ms) (size 1471)<br>
Reply to request 22 (1 ms) (size 1472)<br>
Reply to request 23 (1 ms) (size 1473)<br>
Reply to request 24 (2 ms) (size 1474)<br>
Reply to request 25 (1 ms) (size 1475)<br>
Reply to request 26 (1 ms) (size 1476)<br>
Reply to request 27 (2 ms) (size 1477)<br>
Reply to request 28 (1 ms) (size 1478)<br>
Reply to request 29 (1 ms) (size 1479)<br>
Reply to request 30 (2 ms) (size 1480)<br>
Reply to request 31 (1 ms) (size 1481)<br>
Reply to request 32 (1 ms) (size 1482)<br>
Reply to request 33 (2 ms) (size 1483)<br>
Reply to request 34 (1 ms) (size 1484)<br>
Reply to request 35 (1 ms) (size 1485)<br>
Reply to request 36 (1 ms) (size 1486)<br>
Reply to request 37 (2 ms) (size 1487)<br>
Reply to request 38 (2 ms) (size 1488)<br>
Reply to request 39 (1 ms) (size 1489)<br>
Reply to request 40 (1 ms) (size 1490)<br>
Reply to request 41 (2 ms) (size 1491)<br>
Reply to request 42 (1 ms) (size 1492)<br>
Reply to request 43 (1 ms) (size 1493)<br>
Reply to request 44 (2 ms) (size 1494)<br>
Reply to request 45 (2 ms) (size 1495)<br>
Reply to request 46 (1 ms) (size 1496)<br>
Reply to request 47 (2 ms) (size 1497)<br>
Reply to request 48 (1 ms) (size 1498)<br>
Reply to request 49 (2 ms) (size 1499)<br>
Reply to request 50 (1 ms) (size 1500)<br>
Request 51 timed out (size 1501)<br>
Request 52 timed out (size 1502)<br>
Request 53 timed out (size 1503)<br>
Request 54 timed out (size 1504)<br>
Request 55 timed out (size 1505)<br>
^C<br>
Success rate is 91 percent (51/56), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
ping vrf INTERNET<br>
Protocol [ip]:<br>
Target IP address: 4.2.2.4<br>
Repeat count [5]: 1<br>
Datagram size [100]:<br>
Timeout in seconds [2]:<br>
Extended commands [n]: y<br>
Ingress ping [n]:<br>
Source address or interface:<br>
Type of service [0]:<br>
Set DF bit in IP header? [no]: yes<br>
Validate reply data? [no]:<br>
Data pattern [0x0000ABCD]:<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: V<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[V]:<br>
Sweep range of sizes [n]: y<br>
Sweep min size [36]: 1450<br>
Sweep max size [18024]: 1550<br>
Sweep interval [1]:<br>
Type escape sequence to abort.<br>
Sending 101, [1450..1550]-byte ICMP Echos to 4.2.2.4, timeout is 2 seconds:<br>
Packet sent with the DF bit set<br>
Reply to request 0 (151 ms) (size 1450)<br>
Reply to request 1 (151 ms) (size 1451)<br>
Reply to request 2 (151 ms) (size 1452)<br>
Reply to request 3 (152 ms) (size 1453)<br>
Reply to request 4 (152 ms) (size 1454)<br>
Reply to request 5 (151 ms) (size 1455)<br>
Reply to request 6 (151 ms) (size 1456)<br>
Reply to request 7 (152 ms) (size 1457)<br>
Reply to request 8 (151 ms) (size 1458)<br>
Reply to request 9 (151 ms) (size 1459)<br>
Reply to request 10 (152 ms) (size 1460)<br>
Reply to request 11 (152 ms) (size 1461)<br>
Reply to request 12 (152 ms) (size 1462)<br>
Reply to request 13 (151 ms) (size 1463)<br>
Reply to request 14 (151 ms) (size 1464)<br>
Reply to request 15 (152 ms) (size 1465)<br>
Reply to request 16 (151 ms) (size 1466)<br>
Reply to request 17 (151 ms) (size 1467)<br>
Reply to request 18 (151 ms) (size 1468)<br>
Reply to request 19 (151 ms) (size 1469)<br>
Reply to request 20 (152 ms) (size 1470)<br>
Reply to request 21 (152 ms) (size 1471)<br>
Reply to request 22 (151 ms) (size 1472)<br>
Reply to request 23 (151 ms) (size 1473)<br>
Reply to request 24 (152 ms) (size 1474)<br>
Reply to request 25 (151 ms) (size 1475)<br>
Reply to request 26 (151 ms) (size 1476)<br>
Reply to request 27 (152 ms) (size 1477)<br>
Reply to request 28 (151 ms) (size 1478)<br>
Reply to request 29 (151 ms) (size 1479)<br>
Reply to request 30 (151 ms) (size 1480)<br>
Reply to request 31 (151 ms) (size 1481)<br>
Reply to request 32 (151 ms) (size 1482)<br>
Reply to request 33 (152 ms) (size 1483)<br>
Reply to request 34 (151 ms) (size 1484)<br>
Reply to request 35 (152 ms) (size 1485)<br>
Reply to request 36 (151 ms) (size 1486)<br>
Reply to request 37 (151 ms) (size 1487)<br>
Reply to request 38 (152 ms) (size 1488)<br>
Reply to request 39 (151 ms) (size 1489)<br>
Reply to request 40 (151 ms) (size 1490)<br>
Reply to request 41 (152 ms) (size 1491)<br>
Reply to request 42 (151 ms) (size 1492)<br>
Reply to request 43 (151 ms) (size 1493)<br>
Reply to request 44 (152 ms) (size 1494)<br>
Reply to request 45 (151 ms) (size 1495)<br>
Reply to request 46 (151 ms) (size 1496)<br>
Reply to request 47 (155 ms) (size 1497)<br>
Reply to request 48 (151 ms) (size 1498)<br>
Reply to request 49 (151 ms) (size 1499)<br>
Reply to request 50 (151 ms) (size 1500)<br>
Request 51 timed out (size 1501)<br>
Request 52 timed out (size 1502)<br>
Request 53 timed out (size 1503)<br>
Request 54 timed out (size 1504)<br>
^C<br>
Success rate is 92 percent (51/55), round-trip min/avg/max = 151/151/155 ms<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Nathan Brookfield <<br>
<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.co<wbr>m.au</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Towards you upstream providers that are switching the L2TP sessions what<br>
> is the maximum MTU you can ping with the DF bit sets<br>
><br>
> Nathan Brookfield<br>
> Chief Executive Officer<br>
><br>
> Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd<br>
> <a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.simtronic.com.au</a><br>
><br>
> On 18 Mar 2017, at 19:16, Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi everyone,<br>
><br>
> Need thoughts on a speed issue and would appreciate if anyone might be<br>
> able to help as I am running out of ideas.<br>
><br>
> I have a new ASR1002 in production to operate as LNS but services<br>
> authenticated are experiencing speed issues and web pages not loading<br>
> properly. My initial thought was the MTU size but this doesnt look to be<br>
> the root cause as authenticated services can ping (<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bbc.com</a> for instance)<br>
> by MTU size 1464 (28bit ICMP + 8bit PPP) ok, but (bbc again for example)<br>
> web pages fail to load completely when browsed to. The sample service I am<br>
> testing with is a 20MB EFM and speed test sits around 16MB up/down. No<br>
> input/output errors on any of the interfaces and speed is 1000 duplex full<br>
> on all.<br>
><br>
> I would appreciate if any one can suggest anything else I might be missing<br>
> out.<br>
><br>
> Thanks in advance.<br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> AusNOG mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/1b5d7400/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/1b5d7400/attachment-0001.<wbr>html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 20:03:42 +1100<br>
From: Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:michael@hobl.com.au" target="_blank">michael@hobl.com.au</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CADZYfx3sOKTmLS2Ee8F-Dd_zL_i3%2BYoaGt3Qbid-02p9kA8qVw@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CADZYfx3sOKTmLS2Ee8F-Dd_zL_i3<wbr>+YoaGt3Qbid-02p9kA8qVw@mail.gm<wbr>ail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Thanks Michael Ill PCAP the sample session. The thing is the same session<br>
authenticates fine on an existing LNS (7206) with same parameters and does<br>
not experience the speed issue on 7206, but does on the asr1k<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 7:27 PM, <<a href="mailto:michael@hobl.com.au" target="_blank">michael@hobl.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> My first thoughts would be to check a PCAP for retransmits and ensure<br>
> there aren't any funky burst values on the session/s you're authenticating.<br>
><br>
> - Michael<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 18 Mar. 2017 6:15 pm, Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi everyone,<br>
><br>
> Need thoughts on a speed issue and would appreciate if anyone might be<br>
> able to help as I am running out of ideas.<br>
><br>
> I have a new ASR1002 in production to operate as LNS but services<br>
> authenticated are experiencing speed issues and web pages not loading<br>
> properly. My initial thought was the MTU size but this doesnt look to be<br>
> the root cause as authenticated services can ping (<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bbc.com</a> for instance)<br>
> by MTU size 1464 (28bit ICMP + 8bit PPP) ok, but (bbc again for example)<br>
> web pages fail to load completely when browsed to. The sample service I am<br>
> testing with is a 20MB EFM and speed test sits around 16MB up/down. No<br>
> input/output errors on any of the interfaces and speed is 1000 duplex full<br>
> on all.<br>
><br>
> I would appreciate if any one can suggest anything else I might be missing<br>
> out.<br>
><br>
> Thanks in advance.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/2959254e/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/2959254e/attachment-0001.<wbr>html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 20:14:17 +1100<br>
From: Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: trents <<a href="mailto:trents@linkingservices.com.au" target="_blank">trents@linkingservices.com.au</a><wbr>>, <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CADZYfx1H25h7n09JzWa46sy%2BVKHv%2Be0xcqy8WXe6jE6f-HsUcA@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CADZYfx1H25h7n09JzWa46sy+VKHv<wbr>+e0xcqy8WXe6jE6f-HsUcA@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
tcp-mss is set to adjust to 1452 under virtual-template<br>
PPP is coming in via a vlan direct from the switch to the asr<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:09 PM, trents <<a href="mailto:trents@linkingservices.com.au" target="_blank">trents@linkingservices.com.au</a><wbr>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> I've seen things like that plenty of times when using AAPT. Its usally the<br>
> same culprits. Do you have a tcp adjust mms in your virtual-template and<br>
> are you terminating directly I to the asr or via a swicth? I has similar<br>
> issues switching from 7200 to asr.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.<br>
><br>
> -------- Original message --------<br>
> From: Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Date: 18/03/2017 19:15 (GMT+10:00)<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
> Subject: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
><br>
> Hi everyone,<br>
><br>
> Need thoughts on a speed issue and would appreciate if anyone might be<br>
> able to help as I am running out of ideas.<br>
><br>
> I have a new ASR1002 in production to operate as LNS but services<br>
> authenticated are experiencing speed issues and web pages not loading<br>
> properly. My initial thought was the MTU size but this doesnt look to be<br>
> the root cause as authenticated services can ping (<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bbc.com</a> for instance)<br>
> by MTU size 1464 (28bit ICMP + 8bit PPP) ok, but (bbc again for example)<br>
> web pages fail to load completely when browsed to. The sample service I am<br>
> testing with is a 20MB EFM and speed test sits around 16MB up/down. No<br>
> input/output errors on any of the interfaces and speed is 1000 duplex full<br>
> on all.<br>
><br>
> I would appreciate if any one can suggest anything else I might be missing<br>
> out.<br>
><br>
> Thanks in advance.<br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/fa212b58/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/fa212b58/attachment-0001.<wbr>html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:14:52 +0000<br>
From: Nathan Brookfield <<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.c<wbr>om.au</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:81A37D39-0309-4518-BAD9-FF2D8BC10F1A@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">81A37D39-0309-4518-BAD9-FF2D8<wbr>BC10F1A@simtronic.com.au</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Do you have the physical interfaces on the ASR and your switch set to 9000 or 9216 for Jumbo's?<br>
<br>
L2TP is going to take up 40 bytes of your packet so you should be able to ping the LAC at 1540 bytes without fragmentation for the best performance.<br>
<br>
In saying that, the issue may also be virtual-reassembly on your LNS interfaces as well.<br>
<br>
Nathan Brookfield<br>
Chief Executive Officer<br>
<br>
Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd<br>
<a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.simtronic.com.au</a><br>
<br>
On 18 Mar 2017, at 20:02, Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a><mai<wbr>lto:<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><wbr>> wrote:<br>
<br>
ping to both sample LAC and 4.2.2.4 is at max MTU 1500 with DF bit set<br>
<br>
<br>
#ping vrf INTERNET<br>
Protocol [ip]:<br>
Target IP address: 203.219.113.35<br>
Repeat count [5]: 1<br>
Datagram size [100]:<br>
Timeout in seconds [2]:<br>
Extended commands [n]: y<br>
Ingress ping [n]:<br>
Source address or interface:<br>
Type of service [0]:<br>
Set DF bit in IP header? [no]: yes<br>
Validate reply data? [no]:<br>
Data pattern [0x0000ABCD]:<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: V<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[V]:<br>
Sweep range of sizes [n]: y<br>
Sweep min size [36]: 1450<br>
Sweep max size [18024]: 1550<br>
Sweep interval [1]:<br>
Type escape sequence to abort.<br>
Sending 101, [1450..1550]-byte ICMP Echos to 203.219.113.35, timeout is 2 seconds:<br>
Packet sent with the DF bit set<br>
Reply to request 0 (2 ms) (size 1450)<br>
Reply to request 1 (1 ms) (size 1451)<br>
Reply to request 2 (2 ms) (size 1452)<br>
Reply to request 3 (2 ms) (size 1453)<br>
Reply to request 4 (1 ms) (size 1454)<br>
Reply to request 5 (1 ms) (size 1455)<br>
Reply to request 6 (2 ms) (size 1456)<br>
Reply to request 7 (1 ms) (size 1457)<br>
Reply to request 8 (1 ms) (size 1458)<br>
Reply to request 9 (2 ms) (size 1459)<br>
Reply to request 10 (1 ms) (size 1460)<br>
Reply to request 11 (1 ms) (size 1461)<br>
Reply to request 12 (2 ms) (size 1462)<br>
Reply to request 13 (1 ms) (size 1463)<br>
Reply to request 14 (1 ms) (size 1464)<br>
Reply to request 15 (2 ms) (size 1465)<br>
Reply to request 16 (1 ms) (size 1466)<br>
Reply to request 17 (1 ms) (size 1467)<br>
Reply to request 18 (2 ms) (size 1468)<br>
Reply to request 19 (2 ms) (size 1469)<br>
Reply to request 20 (1 ms) (size 1470)<br>
Reply to request 21 (1 ms) (size 1471)<br>
Reply to request 22 (1 ms) (size 1472)<br>
Reply to request 23 (1 ms) (size 1473)<br>
Reply to request 24 (2 ms) (size 1474)<br>
Reply to request 25 (1 ms) (size 1475)<br>
Reply to request 26 (1 ms) (size 1476)<br>
Reply to request 27 (2 ms) (size 1477)<br>
Reply to request 28 (1 ms) (size 1478)<br>
Reply to request 29 (1 ms) (size 1479)<br>
Reply to request 30 (2 ms) (size 1480)<br>
Reply to request 31 (1 ms) (size 1481)<br>
Reply to request 32 (1 ms) (size 1482)<br>
Reply to request 33 (2 ms) (size 1483)<br>
Reply to request 34 (1 ms) (size 1484)<br>
Reply to request 35 (1 ms) (size 1485)<br>
Reply to request 36 (1 ms) (size 1486)<br>
Reply to request 37 (2 ms) (size 1487)<br>
Reply to request 38 (2 ms) (size 1488)<br>
Reply to request 39 (1 ms) (size 1489)<br>
Reply to request 40 (1 ms) (size 1490)<br>
Reply to request 41 (2 ms) (size 1491)<br>
Reply to request 42 (1 ms) (size 1492)<br>
Reply to request 43 (1 ms) (size 1493)<br>
Reply to request 44 (2 ms) (size 1494)<br>
Reply to request 45 (2 ms) (size 1495)<br>
Reply to request 46 (1 ms) (size 1496)<br>
Reply to request 47 (2 ms) (size 1497)<br>
Reply to request 48 (1 ms) (size 1498)<br>
Reply to request 49 (2 ms) (size 1499)<br>
Reply to request 50 (1 ms) (size 1500)<br>
Request 51 timed out (size 1501)<br>
Request 52 timed out (size 1502)<br>
Request 53 timed out (size 1503)<br>
Request 54 timed out (size 1504)<br>
Request 55 timed out (size 1505)<br>
^C<br>
Success rate is 91 percent (51/56), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
ping vrf INTERNET<br>
Protocol [ip]:<br>
Target IP address: 4.2.2.4<br>
Repeat count [5]: 1<br>
Datagram size [100]:<br>
Timeout in seconds [2]:<br>
Extended commands [n]: y<br>
Ingress ping [n]:<br>
Source address or interface:<br>
Type of service [0]:<br>
Set DF bit in IP header? [no]: yes<br>
Validate reply data? [no]:<br>
Data pattern [0x0000ABCD]:<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: V<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[V]:<br>
Sweep range of sizes [n]: y<br>
Sweep min size [36]: 1450<br>
Sweep max size [18024]: 1550<br>
Sweep interval [1]:<br>
Type escape sequence to abort.<br>
Sending 101, [1450..1550]-byte ICMP Echos to 4.2.2.4, timeout is 2 seconds:<br>
Packet sent with the DF bit set<br>
Reply to request 0 (151 ms) (size 1450)<br>
Reply to request 1 (151 ms) (size 1451)<br>
Reply to request 2 (151 ms) (size 1452)<br>
Reply to request 3 (152 ms) (size 1453)<br>
Reply to request 4 (152 ms) (size 1454)<br>
Reply to request 5 (151 ms) (size 1455)<br>
Reply to request 6 (151 ms) (size 1456)<br>
Reply to request 7 (152 ms) (size 1457)<br>
Reply to request 8 (151 ms) (size 1458)<br>
Reply to request 9 (151 ms) (size 1459)<br>
Reply to request 10 (152 ms) (size 1460)<br>
Reply to request 11 (152 ms) (size 1461)<br>
Reply to request 12 (152 ms) (size 1462)<br>
Reply to request 13 (151 ms) (size 1463)<br>
Reply to request 14 (151 ms) (size 1464)<br>
Reply to request 15 (152 ms) (size 1465)<br>
Reply to request 16 (151 ms) (size 1466)<br>
Reply to request 17 (151 ms) (size 1467)<br>
Reply to request 18 (151 ms) (size 1468)<br>
Reply to request 19 (151 ms) (size 1469)<br>
Reply to request 20 (152 ms) (size 1470)<br>
Reply to request 21 (152 ms) (size 1471)<br>
Reply to request 22 (151 ms) (size 1472)<br>
Reply to request 23 (151 ms) (size 1473)<br>
Reply to request 24 (152 ms) (size 1474)<br>
Reply to request 25 (151 ms) (size 1475)<br>
Reply to request 26 (151 ms) (size 1476)<br>
Reply to request 27 (152 ms) (size 1477)<br>
Reply to request 28 (151 ms) (size 1478)<br>
Reply to request 29 (151 ms) (size 1479)<br>
Reply to request 30 (151 ms) (size 1480)<br>
Reply to request 31 (151 ms) (size 1481)<br>
Reply to request 32 (151 ms) (size 1482)<br>
Reply to request 33 (152 ms) (size 1483)<br>
Reply to request 34 (151 ms) (size 1484)<br>
Reply to request 35 (152 ms) (size 1485)<br>
Reply to request 36 (151 ms) (size 1486)<br>
Reply to request 37 (151 ms) (size 1487)<br>
Reply to request 38 (152 ms) (size 1488)<br>
Reply to request 39 (151 ms) (size 1489)<br>
Reply to request 40 (151 ms) (size 1490)<br>
Reply to request 41 (152 ms) (size 1491)<br>
Reply to request 42 (151 ms) (size 1492)<br>
Reply to request 43 (151 ms) (size 1493)<br>
Reply to request 44 (152 ms) (size 1494)<br>
Reply to request 45 (151 ms) (size 1495)<br>
Reply to request 46 (151 ms) (size 1496)<br>
Reply to request 47 (155 ms) (size 1497)<br>
Reply to request 48 (151 ms) (size 1498)<br>
Reply to request 49 (151 ms) (size 1499)<br>
Reply to request 50 (151 ms) (size 1500)<br>
Request 51 timed out (size 1501)<br>
Request 52 timed out (size 1502)<br>
Request 53 timed out (size 1503)<br>
Request 54 timed out (size 1504)<br>
^C<br>
Success rate is 92 percent (51/55), round-trip min/avg/max = 151/151/155 ms<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Nathan Brookfield <<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.c<wbr>om.au</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield<wbr>@simtronic.com.au</a>>> wrote:<br>
Towards you upstream providers that are switching the L2TP sessions what is the maximum MTU you can ping with the DF bit sets<br>
<br>
Nathan Brookfield<br>
Chief Executive Officer<br>
<br>
Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd<br>
<a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.simtronic.com.au</a><br>
<br>
On 18 Mar 2017, at 19:16, Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a><mai<wbr>lto:<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><wbr>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
Need thoughts on a speed issue and would appreciate if anyone might be able to help as I am running out of ideas.<br>
<br>
I have a new ASR1002 in production to operate as LNS but services authenticated are experiencing speed issues and web pages not loading properly. My initial thought was the MTU size but this doesnt look to be the root cause as authenticated services can ping (<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bbc.com</a><<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bbc.com</a>> for instance) by MTU size 1464 (28bit ICMP + 8bit PPP) ok, but (bbc again for example) web pages fail to load completely when browsed to. The sample service I am testing with is a 20MB EFM and speed test sits around 16MB up/down. No input/output errors on any of the interfaces and speed is 1000 duplex full on all.<br>
<br>
I would appreciate if any one can suggest anything else I might be missing out.<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance.<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><mailto<wbr>:<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/935cf2e6/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/935cf2e6/attachment-0001.<wbr>html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 8<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:20:43 +0000<br>
From: Nathan Brookfield <<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.c<wbr>om.au</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:ME1PR01MB16018B68812451D6BDD32C45DE380@ME1PR01MB1601.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com" target="_blank">ME1PR01MB16018B68812451D6BDD3<wbr>2C45DE380@ME1PR01MB1601.ausprd<wbr>01.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
For example:<br>
<br>
<br>
lns01.syd02.nsw#ping 203.219.113.35 source lo100 size 1540 df<br>
<br>
Type escape sequence to abort.<br>
Sending 5, 1540-byte ICMP Echos to 203.219.113.35, timeout is 2 seconds:<br>
Packet sent with a source address of X.X.X.acket sent with the DF bit set<br>
!!!!!<br>
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 8/9/12 ms<br>
lns01.syd02.nsw#<br>
<br>
<br>
Kindest Regards,<br>
<br>
Nathan Brookfield (VK2NAB)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chief Executive Officer<br>
<br>
Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Local: (02) 4749 4949 | Fax: (02) 4749 4950 | Direct: (02) 4749 4951<br>
<br>
Web: <a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.simtronic.com.au</a><<a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ht<wbr>tp://www.simtronic.com.au/</a>> | E-mail: <a href="mailto:nathan.brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">nathan.brookfield@simtronic.co<wbr>m.au</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:nathan.brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">nathan.brookfield@<wbr>simtronic.com.au</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>__<br>
From: AusNOG <<a href="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.n<wbr>et</a>> on behalf of Nathan Brookfield <<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.c<wbr>om.au</a>><br>
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2017 8:14 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
<br>
Do you have the physical interfaces on the ASR and your switch set to 9000 or 9216 for Jumbo's?<br>
<br>
L2TP is going to take up 40 bytes of your packet so you should be able to ping the LAC at 1540 bytes without fragmentation for the best performance.<br>
<br>
In saying that, the issue may also be virtual-reassembly on your LNS interfaces as well.<br>
<br>
Nathan Brookfield<br>
Chief Executive Officer<br>
<br>
Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd<br>
<a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.simtronic.com.au</a><br>
<br>
On 18 Mar 2017, at 20:02, Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a><mai<wbr>lto:<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><wbr>> wrote:<br>
<br>
ping to both sample LAC and 4.2.2.4 is at max MTU 1500 with DF bit set<br>
<br>
<br>
#ping vrf INTERNET<br>
Protocol [ip]:<br>
Target IP address: 203.219.113.35<br>
Repeat count [5]: 1<br>
Datagram size [100]:<br>
Timeout in seconds [2]:<br>
Extended commands [n]: y<br>
Ingress ping [n]:<br>
Source address or interface:<br>
Type of service [0]:<br>
Set DF bit in IP header? [no]: yes<br>
Validate reply data? [no]:<br>
Data pattern [0x0000ABCD]:<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: V<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[V]:<br>
Sweep range of sizes [n]: y<br>
Sweep min size [36]: 1450<br>
Sweep max size [18024]: 1550<br>
Sweep interval [1]:<br>
Type escape sequence to abort.<br>
Sending 101, [1450..1550]-byte ICMP Echos to 203.219.113.35, timeout is 2 seconds:<br>
Packet sent with the DF bit set<br>
Reply to request 0 (2 ms) (size 1450)<br>
Reply to request 1 (1 ms) (size 1451)<br>
Reply to request 2 (2 ms) (size 1452)<br>
Reply to request 3 (2 ms) (size 1453)<br>
Reply to request 4 (1 ms) (size 1454)<br>
Reply to request 5 (1 ms) (size 1455)<br>
Reply to request 6 (2 ms) (size 1456)<br>
Reply to request 7 (1 ms) (size 1457)<br>
Reply to request 8 (1 ms) (size 1458)<br>
Reply to request 9 (2 ms) (size 1459)<br>
Reply to request 10 (1 ms) (size 1460)<br>
Reply to request 11 (1 ms) (size 1461)<br>
Reply to request 12 (2 ms) (size 1462)<br>
Reply to request 13 (1 ms) (size 1463)<br>
Reply to request 14 (1 ms) (size 1464)<br>
Reply to request 15 (2 ms) (size 1465)<br>
Reply to request 16 (1 ms) (size 1466)<br>
Reply to request 17 (1 ms) (size 1467)<br>
Reply to request 18 (2 ms) (size 1468)<br>
Reply to request 19 (2 ms) (size 1469)<br>
Reply to request 20 (1 ms) (size 1470)<br>
Reply to request 21 (1 ms) (size 1471)<br>
Reply to request 22 (1 ms) (size 1472)<br>
Reply to request 23 (1 ms) (size 1473)<br>
Reply to request 24 (2 ms) (size 1474)<br>
Reply to request 25 (1 ms) (size 1475)<br>
Reply to request 26 (1 ms) (size 1476)<br>
Reply to request 27 (2 ms) (size 1477)<br>
Reply to request 28 (1 ms) (size 1478)<br>
Reply to request 29 (1 ms) (size 1479)<br>
Reply to request 30 (2 ms) (size 1480)<br>
Reply to request 31 (1 ms) (size 1481)<br>
Reply to request 32 (1 ms) (size 1482)<br>
Reply to request 33 (2 ms) (size 1483)<br>
Reply to request 34 (1 ms) (size 1484)<br>
Reply to request 35 (1 ms) (size 1485)<br>
Reply to request 36 (1 ms) (size 1486)<br>
Reply to request 37 (2 ms) (size 1487)<br>
Reply to request 38 (2 ms) (size 1488)<br>
Reply to request 39 (1 ms) (size 1489)<br>
Reply to request 40 (1 ms) (size 1490)<br>
Reply to request 41 (2 ms) (size 1491)<br>
Reply to request 42 (1 ms) (size 1492)<br>
Reply to request 43 (1 ms) (size 1493)<br>
Reply to request 44 (2 ms) (size 1494)<br>
Reply to request 45 (2 ms) (size 1495)<br>
Reply to request 46 (1 ms) (size 1496)<br>
Reply to request 47 (2 ms) (size 1497)<br>
Reply to request 48 (1 ms) (size 1498)<br>
Reply to request 49 (2 ms) (size 1499)<br>
Reply to request 50 (1 ms) (size 1500)<br>
Request 51 timed out (size 1501)<br>
Request 52 timed out (size 1502)<br>
Request 53 timed out (size 1503)<br>
Request 54 timed out (size 1504)<br>
Request 55 timed out (size 1505)<br>
^C<br>
Success rate is 91 percent (51/56), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
ping vrf INTERNET<br>
Protocol [ip]:<br>
Target IP address: 4.2.2.4<br>
Repeat count [5]: 1<br>
Datagram size [100]:<br>
Timeout in seconds [2]:<br>
Extended commands [n]: y<br>
Ingress ping [n]:<br>
Source address or interface:<br>
Type of service [0]:<br>
Set DF bit in IP header? [no]: yes<br>
Validate reply data? [no]:<br>
Data pattern [0x0000ABCD]:<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: V<br>
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[V]:<br>
Sweep range of sizes [n]: y<br>
Sweep min size [36]: 1450<br>
Sweep max size [18024]: 1550<br>
Sweep interval [1]:<br>
Type escape sequence to abort.<br>
Sending 101, [1450..1550]-byte ICMP Echos to 4.2.2.4, timeout is 2 seconds:<br>
Packet sent with the DF bit set<br>
Reply to request 0 (151 ms) (size 1450)<br>
Reply to request 1 (151 ms) (size 1451)<br>
Reply to request 2 (151 ms) (size 1452)<br>
Reply to request 3 (152 ms) (size 1453)<br>
Reply to request 4 (152 ms) (size 1454)<br>
Reply to request 5 (151 ms) (size 1455)<br>
Reply to request 6 (151 ms) (size 1456)<br>
Reply to request 7 (152 ms) (size 1457)<br>
Reply to request 8 (151 ms) (size 1458)<br>
Reply to request 9 (151 ms) (size 1459)<br>
Reply to request 10 (152 ms) (size 1460)<br>
Reply to request 11 (152 ms) (size 1461)<br>
Reply to request 12 (152 ms) (size 1462)<br>
Reply to request 13 (151 ms) (size 1463)<br>
Reply to request 14 (151 ms) (size 1464)<br>
Reply to request 15 (152 ms) (size 1465)<br>
Reply to request 16 (151 ms) (size 1466)<br>
Reply to request 17 (151 ms) (size 1467)<br>
Reply to request 18 (151 ms) (size 1468)<br>
Reply to request 19 (151 ms) (size 1469)<br>
Reply to request 20 (152 ms) (size 1470)<br>
Reply to request 21 (152 ms) (size 1471)<br>
Reply to request 22 (151 ms) (size 1472)<br>
Reply to request 23 (151 ms) (size 1473)<br>
Reply to request 24 (152 ms) (size 1474)<br>
Reply to request 25 (151 ms) (size 1475)<br>
Reply to request 26 (151 ms) (size 1476)<br>
Reply to request 27 (152 ms) (size 1477)<br>
Reply to request 28 (151 ms) (size 1478)<br>
Reply to request 29 (151 ms) (size 1479)<br>
Reply to request 30 (151 ms) (size 1480)<br>
Reply to request 31 (151 ms) (size 1481)<br>
Reply to request 32 (151 ms) (size 1482)<br>
Reply to request 33 (152 ms) (size 1483)<br>
Reply to request 34 (151 ms) (size 1484)<br>
Reply to request 35 (152 ms) (size 1485)<br>
Reply to request 36 (151 ms) (size 1486)<br>
Reply to request 37 (151 ms) (size 1487)<br>
Reply to request 38 (152 ms) (size 1488)<br>
Reply to request 39 (151 ms) (size 1489)<br>
Reply to request 40 (151 ms) (size 1490)<br>
Reply to request 41 (152 ms) (size 1491)<br>
Reply to request 42 (151 ms) (size 1492)<br>
Reply to request 43 (151 ms) (size 1493)<br>
Reply to request 44 (152 ms) (size 1494)<br>
Reply to request 45 (151 ms) (size 1495)<br>
Reply to request 46 (151 ms) (size 1496)<br>
Reply to request 47 (155 ms) (size 1497)<br>
Reply to request 48 (151 ms) (size 1498)<br>
Reply to request 49 (151 ms) (size 1499)<br>
Reply to request 50 (151 ms) (size 1500)<br>
Request 51 timed out (size 1501)<br>
Request 52 timed out (size 1502)<br>
Request 53 timed out (size 1503)<br>
Request 54 timed out (size 1504)<br>
^C<br>
Success rate is 92 percent (51/55), round-trip min/avg/max = 151/151/155 ms<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Nathan Brookfield <<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.c<wbr>om.au</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield<wbr>@simtronic.com.au</a>>> wrote:<br>
Towards you upstream providers that are switching the L2TP sessions what is the maximum MTU you can ping with the DF bit sets<br>
<br>
Nathan Brookfield<br>
Chief Executive Officer<br>
<br>
Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd<br>
<a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.simtronic.com.au</a><br>
<br>
On 18 Mar 2017, at 19:16, Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a><mai<wbr>lto:<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><wbr>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
Need thoughts on a speed issue and would appreciate if anyone might be able to help as I am running out of ideas.<br>
<br>
I have a new ASR1002 in production to operate as LNS but services authenticated are experiencing speed issues and web pages not loading properly. My initial thought was the MTU size but this doesnt look to be the root cause as authenticated services can ping (<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bbc.com</a><<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bbc.com</a>> for instance) by MTU size 1464 (28bit ICMP + 8bit PPP) ok, but (bbc again for example) web pages fail to load completely when browsed to. The sample service I am testing with is a 20MB EFM and speed test sits around 16MB up/down. No input/output errors on any of the interfaces and speed is 1000 duplex full on all.<br>
<br>
I would appreciate if any one can suggest anything else I might be missing out.<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance.<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><mailto<wbr>:<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/b88519e2/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/b88519e2/attachment-0001.<wbr>html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 9<br>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 20:20:31 +1100<br>
From: Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Nathan Brookfield <<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.c<wbr>om.au</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Speed issues on ASR1k<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CADZYfx2=<a href="mailto:1QCPPn-a6geM4pUBnNz9jaM2TxmJ24B4h4LBaLTnfQ@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">1QCPPn-a6geM4pUBnNz9<wbr>jaM2TxmJ24B4h4LBaLTnfQ@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Jumbo is set to 9216 on both Core and Customer-facing interfaces<br>
<br>
MEL-NDC-CORE01#sh run int gigabitEthernet 0/0/0 | i mtu<br>
mtu 9216<br>
MEL-NDC-CORE01#sh run int gigabitEthernet 0/0/1 | i mtu<br>
mtu 9216<br>
MEL-NDC-CORE01#<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I agree with you Nathan but this is an issue I can look deeper into at a<br>
later in time. This does not look to be the root cause of my problem at<br>
this stage I just double checked on my other LNS (7206) and max ping MTU is<br>
1500 and the same service does not have speed issues on the 7206<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Nathan Brookfield <<br>
<a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.co<wbr>m.au</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Do you have the physical interfaces on the ASR and your switch set to 9000<br>
> or 9216 for Jumbo's?<br>
><br>
> L2TP is going to take up 40 bytes of your packet so you should be able to<br>
> ping the LAC at 1540 bytes without fragmentation for the best performance.<br>
><br>
> In saying that, the issue may also be virtual-reassembly on your LNS<br>
> interfaces as well.<br>
><br>
> Nathan Brookfield<br>
> Chief Executive Officer<br>
><br>
> Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd<br>
> <a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.simtronic.com.au</a><br>
><br>
> On 18 Mar 2017, at 20:02, Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ping to both sample LAC and 4.2.2.4 is at max MTU 1500 with DF bit set<br>
><br>
><br>
> #ping vrf INTERNET<br>
> Protocol [ip]:<br>
> Target IP address: 203.219.113.35<br>
> Repeat count [5]: 1<br>
> Datagram size [100]:<br>
> Timeout in seconds [2]:<br>
> Extended commands [n]: y<br>
> Ingress ping [n]:<br>
> Source address or interface:<br>
> Type of service [0]:<br>
> Set DF bit in IP header? [no]: yes<br>
> Validate reply data? [no]:<br>
> Data pattern [0x0000ABCD]:<br>
> Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: V<br>
> Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[V]:<br>
> Sweep range of sizes [n]: y<br>
> Sweep min size [36]: 1450<br>
> Sweep max size [18024]: 1550<br>
> Sweep interval [1]:<br>
> Type escape sequence to abort.<br>
> Sending 101, [1450..1550]-byte ICMP Echos to 203.219.113.35, timeout is 2<br>
> seconds:<br>
> Packet sent with the DF bit set<br>
> Reply to request 0 (2 ms) (size 1450)<br>
> Reply to request 1 (1 ms) (size 1451)<br>
> Reply to request 2 (2 ms) (size 1452)<br>
> Reply to request 3 (2 ms) (size 1453)<br>
> Reply to request 4 (1 ms) (size 1454)<br>
> Reply to request 5 (1 ms) (size 1455)<br>
> Reply to request 6 (2 ms) (size 1456)<br>
> Reply to request 7 (1 ms) (size 1457)<br>
> Reply to request 8 (1 ms) (size 1458)<br>
> Reply to request 9 (2 ms) (size 1459)<br>
> Reply to request 10 (1 ms) (size 1460)<br>
> Reply to request 11 (1 ms) (size 1461)<br>
> Reply to request 12 (2 ms) (size 1462)<br>
> Reply to request 13 (1 ms) (size 1463)<br>
> Reply to request 14 (1 ms) (size 1464)<br>
> Reply to request 15 (2 ms) (size 1465)<br>
> Reply to request 16 (1 ms) (size 1466)<br>
> Reply to request 17 (1 ms) (size 1467)<br>
> Reply to request 18 (2 ms) (size 1468)<br>
> Reply to request 19 (2 ms) (size 1469)<br>
> Reply to request 20 (1 ms) (size 1470)<br>
> Reply to request 21 (1 ms) (size 1471)<br>
> Reply to request 22 (1 ms) (size 1472)<br>
> Reply to request 23 (1 ms) (size 1473)<br>
> Reply to request 24 (2 ms) (size 1474)<br>
> Reply to request 25 (1 ms) (size 1475)<br>
> Reply to request 26 (1 ms) (size 1476)<br>
> Reply to request 27 (2 ms) (size 1477)<br>
> Reply to request 28 (1 ms) (size 1478)<br>
> Reply to request 29 (1 ms) (size 1479)<br>
> Reply to request 30 (2 ms) (size 1480)<br>
> Reply to request 31 (1 ms) (size 1481)<br>
> Reply to request 32 (1 ms) (size 1482)<br>
> Reply to request 33 (2 ms) (size 1483)<br>
> Reply to request 34 (1 ms) (size 1484)<br>
> Reply to request 35 (1 ms) (size 1485)<br>
> Reply to request 36 (1 ms) (size 1486)<br>
> Reply to request 37 (2 ms) (size 1487)<br>
> Reply to request 38 (2 ms) (size 1488)<br>
> Reply to request 39 (1 ms) (size 1489)<br>
> Reply to request 40 (1 ms) (size 1490)<br>
> Reply to request 41 (2 ms) (size 1491)<br>
> Reply to request 42 (1 ms) (size 1492)<br>
> Reply to request 43 (1 ms) (size 1493)<br>
> Reply to request 44 (2 ms) (size 1494)<br>
> Reply to request 45 (2 ms) (size 1495)<br>
> Reply to request 46 (1 ms) (size 1496)<br>
> Reply to request 47 (2 ms) (size 1497)<br>
> Reply to request 48 (1 ms) (size 1498)<br>
> Reply to request 49 (2 ms) (size 1499)<br>
> Reply to request 50 (1 ms) (size 1500)<br>
> Request 51 timed out (size 1501)<br>
> Request 52 timed out (size 1502)<br>
> Request 53 timed out (size 1503)<br>
> Request 54 timed out (size 1504)<br>
> Request 55 timed out (size 1505)<br>
> ^C<br>
> Success rate is 91 percent (51/56), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ping vrf INTERNET<br>
> Protocol [ip]:<br>
> Target IP address: 4.2.2.4<br>
> Repeat count [5]: 1<br>
> Datagram size [100]:<br>
> Timeout in seconds [2]:<br>
> Extended commands [n]: y<br>
> Ingress ping [n]:<br>
> Source address or interface:<br>
> Type of service [0]:<br>
> Set DF bit in IP header? [no]: yes<br>
> Validate reply data? [no]:<br>
> Data pattern [0x0000ABCD]:<br>
> Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: V<br>
> Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[V]:<br>
> Sweep range of sizes [n]: y<br>
> Sweep min size [36]: 1450<br>
> Sweep max size [18024]: 1550<br>
> Sweep interval [1]:<br>
> Type escape sequence to abort.<br>
> Sending 101, [1450..1550]-byte ICMP Echos to 4.2.2.4, timeout is 2 seconds:<br>
> Packet sent with the DF bit set<br>
> Reply to request 0 (151 ms) (size 1450)<br>
> Reply to request 1 (151 ms) (size 1451)<br>
> Reply to request 2 (151 ms) (size 1452)<br>
> Reply to request 3 (152 ms) (size 1453)<br>
> Reply to request 4 (152 ms) (size 1454)<br>
> Reply to request 5 (151 ms) (size 1455)<br>
> Reply to request 6 (151 ms) (size 1456)<br>
> Reply to request 7 (152 ms) (size 1457)<br>
> Reply to request 8 (151 ms) (size 1458)<br>
> Reply to request 9 (151 ms) (size 1459)<br>
> Reply to request 10 (152 ms) (size 1460)<br>
> Reply to request 11 (152 ms) (size 1461)<br>
> Reply to request 12 (152 ms) (size 1462)<br>
> Reply to request 13 (151 ms) (size 1463)<br>
> Reply to request 14 (151 ms) (size 1464)<br>
> Reply to request 15 (152 ms) (size 1465)<br>
> Reply to request 16 (151 ms) (size 1466)<br>
> Reply to request 17 (151 ms) (size 1467)<br>
> Reply to request 18 (151 ms) (size 1468)<br>
> Reply to request 19 (151 ms) (size 1469)<br>
> Reply to request 20 (152 ms) (size 1470)<br>
> Reply to request 21 (152 ms) (size 1471)<br>
> Reply to request 22 (151 ms) (size 1472)<br>
> Reply to request 23 (151 ms) (size 1473)<br>
> Reply to request 24 (152 ms) (size 1474)<br>
> Reply to request 25 (151 ms) (size 1475)<br>
> Reply to request 26 (151 ms) (size 1476)<br>
> Reply to request 27 (152 ms) (size 1477)<br>
> Reply to request 28 (151 ms) (size 1478)<br>
> Reply to request 29 (151 ms) (size 1479)<br>
> Reply to request 30 (151 ms) (size 1480)<br>
> Reply to request 31 (151 ms) (size 1481)<br>
> Reply to request 32 (151 ms) (size 1482)<br>
> Reply to request 33 (152 ms) (size 1483)<br>
> Reply to request 34 (151 ms) (size 1484)<br>
> Reply to request 35 (152 ms) (size 1485)<br>
> Reply to request 36 (151 ms) (size 1486)<br>
> Reply to request 37 (151 ms) (size 1487)<br>
> Reply to request 38 (152 ms) (size 1488)<br>
> Reply to request 39 (151 ms) (size 1489)<br>
> Reply to request 40 (151 ms) (size 1490)<br>
> Reply to request 41 (152 ms) (size 1491)<br>
> Reply to request 42 (151 ms) (size 1492)<br>
> Reply to request 43 (151 ms) (size 1493)<br>
> Reply to request 44 (152 ms) (size 1494)<br>
> Reply to request 45 (151 ms) (size 1495)<br>
> Reply to request 46 (151 ms) (size 1496)<br>
> Reply to request 47 (155 ms) (size 1497)<br>
> Reply to request 48 (151 ms) (size 1498)<br>
> Reply to request 49 (151 ms) (size 1499)<br>
> Reply to request 50 (151 ms) (size 1500)<br>
> Request 51 timed out (size 1501)<br>
> Request 52 timed out (size 1502)<br>
> Request 53 timed out (size 1503)<br>
> Request 54 timed out (size 1504)<br>
> ^C<br>
> Success rate is 92 percent (51/55), round-trip min/avg/max = 151/151/155 ms<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Nathan Brookfield <<br>
> <a href="mailto:Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.com.au" target="_blank">Nathan.Brookfield@simtronic.co<wbr>m.au</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Towards you upstream providers that are switching the L2TP sessions what<br>
>> is the maximum MTU you can ping with the DF bit sets<br>
>><br>
>> Nathan Brookfield<br>
>> Chief Executive Officer<br>
>><br>
>> Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd<br>
>> <a href="http://www.simtronic.com.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.simtronic.com.au</a><br>
>><br>
>> On 18 Mar 2017, at 19:16, Pouya Madani <<a href="mailto:dynamic.mineral@gmail.com" target="_blank">dynamic.mineral@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi everyone,<br>
>><br>
>> Need thoughts on a speed issue and would appreciate if anyone might be<br>
>> able to help as I am running out of ideas.<br>
>><br>
>> I have a new ASR1002 in production to operate as LNS but services<br>
>> authenticated are experiencing speed issues and web pages not loading<br>
>> properly. My initial thought was the MTU size but this doesnt look to be<br>
>> the root cause as authenticated services can ping (<a href="http://bbc.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bbc.com</a> for instance)<br>
>> by MTU size 1464 (28bit ICMP + 8bit PPP) ok, but (bbc again for example)<br>
>> web pages fail to load completely when browsed to. The sample service I am<br>
>> testing with is a 20MB EFM and speed test sits around 16MB up/down. No<br>
>> input/output errors on any of the interfaces and speed is 1000 duplex full<br>
>> on all.<br>
>><br>
>> I would appreciate if any one can suggest anything else I might be<br>
>> missing out.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks in advance.<br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> AusNOG mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170318/b190b924/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/piper<wbr>mail/ausnog/attachments/201703<wbr>18/b190b924/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of AusNOG Digest, Vol 61, Issue 36<br>
******************************<wbr>********<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>