|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:49:35 -0500 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> To: "Holmes,David A" <dholmes@mwdh2o.com> In-Reply-To: <485ED9BA02629E4BBBA53AC892EDA50E098CAC29@usmsxt104.mwd.h2o> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org Holmes,David A wrote: > runs with good values on all 3 measures (low RTT, little or no packet > loss, low jitter with small inter-packet arrival variation) can be > deemed not a candidate for bandwidth upgrades. The key to active Sounds great, unless you don't own the router on the other side of the link which is subject to icmp filtering has a loaded RE, etc. If you pass the traffic through the routers to a reliable server, you'll be monitoring multiple links/routers and not just a single one. Jack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |