IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Re: We should document IPv6 packet loss...

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 21 May 2024 06:37 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A710C1519B0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2024 23:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=employees.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C77b2IML9Fjj for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2024 23:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (proxmox01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:6::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1B50C15155C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2024 23:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0CCF2E7CA6; Tue, 21 May 2024 06:36:57 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=employees.org; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=prox2023; bh=4wl/ynzIjWL9ZGSb LdjwlJKVe8oegPeX//B3tdZ6Ca0=; b=KOWVZFxHG3at6upwpSJxgPyofuARTmn6 fS0YESISjfdIjhts+ocsRUqJqHKvRXj27M3BhibhvZRfNBX8zEFDTCtpxfygKdKB Q62XxgdZf9DAVd269UMjMUO93PIDKNsdIRu2e92/RVe3o90R/0eGqV3N90iLEJEt OdUX54+MxznuuL34pQAgwSLynZnyz3g+IaGAH1/lhKJl4lMlnhrgk9V4nfu/a3tF tWcLxGopqBM1TZl0zNJUnfme+GY3GWOK8DlHu+6frq9ucVlN1GzZEfo9cUk7ro9o 40/A07CI3uQFKocUaQGj0ow+gHNTHAgNF7utULfcbwJhYHI52alezQ==
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E04BAE7B34; Tue, 21 May 2024 06:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (77.16.220.120.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.16.220.120]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 992B84E11C76; Tue, 21 May 2024 06:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 08:36:43 +0200
Message-Id: <AC067DD6-D264-4B5C-95FA-B7458DF2BB3A@employees.org>
References: <8b809070-b595-49cd-92f5-37989a399e93@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8b809070-b595-49cd-92f5-37989a399e93@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21F79)
Message-ID-Hash: 4X4EX4BEICQ5L6UWRXOJZUTDUWLCUZXO
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4X4EX4BEICQ5L6UWRXOJZUTDUWLCUZXO
X-MailFrom: otroan@employees.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [v6ops] Re: We should document IPv6 packet loss...
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3aw8L9HhcLGnUIrgRnyCpN56vrw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>

Brian,

Interesting!

> On 21 May 2024, at 05:09, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There were no cases where a dual-stack probe failed for both IPv4 and IPv6; in other words all the probes were willing to accept TCP connections, so the failed connects seem very likely to be caused by packet loss. (I could add code to check that by retrying.)

To clarify. Those connections that failed for IPv6. There was only a proportion of the 3 tries that failed? Or did all 3 tries fail?

If you rerun the tests over some time period do you think you would be able to isolate failing paths/probes or are failures distributed across the whole space?

Cheers 
Ole

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status