On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 20:52 UTC, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Steve Bohrer <skbohrer@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... Cheers, Dave Hart