[105811] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Possible explanations for a large hop in latency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Pinsky)
Tue Jul 1 23:55:53 2008
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:55:00 -0700
From: Bruce Pinsky <bep@whack.org>
To: Sam Stickland <sam_mailinglists@spacething.org>
<486AC6BB.70501@spacething.org>
In-Reply-To: <486AC6BB.70501@spacething.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
X-BeenThere: nanog@nanog.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bep@whack.org
List-Id: North American Network Operators Group <nanog.nanog.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>,
<mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog>
List-Post: <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>,
<mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sam Stickland wrote:
| Even if they are decrementing TTL inside of their MPLS core, the TTL
| expired message still has to traverse the entire MPLS LSP (tunnel), so
| the latency reported for each "hop" is in fact the latency of the last
| hop in the MPLS network. Always.
|
And who said tunneling protocols aren't fun :-)
- --
=========
bep
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIavwUE1XcgMgrtyYRArGuAJwJa3g/BiIDqNL1L1lItDu+BL3b/ACeMrPT
DtiH+THvgfPz31MAK2QmsZ4=
=m5il
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
