[13677] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Well done Sprint!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Network Operations Center)
Thu Nov 13 20:23:34 1997
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:15:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Network Operations Center <noc@nwrain.net>
To: Ex-Support Wench <alex@shell2.tiac.net>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971113193108.17923A-100000@shell2.tiac.net>
Hello alex,
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Ex-Support Wench wrote:
> What do y'all think of pathchar *as it is now*? How reliable is it for
> determining actual _available bandwidth_? I thought according to VJ,
> CAIDA, Cisco and even the NSF it was "way-alpha"?
From the testing I've done the results are a reasonable
approx. of the -available- bandwitdh. I have also seen
some very outragious output out of the utility (solaris).
The linux version isn't able to figure out the MTU so
you have to specify it on the command line, when traversing
a slower link the out put from the far side can be -very-
un-reliable.
Hth, JimL
> Steve Blair wrote:
> >
> >well, one could get Van Jacobson's pathchar, and learn the
> >true capacity that way. I could care less what *theoretical
> >bandwidth* is available, when customers complain. I want to
> >know what bandwidth *is available*, and pathchar goes a very
> >long way towards that end.
> >
> >link labelling could be arguably silly, if you're basing your
> >determination on a competetitor's labels, you could
> >get some unusual surprises IMHO...
> >
> >--
> >steve c blair tivoli systems inc sblair@dev.tivoli.com
> >"Why can't we blast them onto someone else's property?"
> >
> >'Vadim Antonov writes...'
> >**>
> >**> There's no use in promoting corporate paranoia at the expense of
> >**> engineering cooperation. It is like butcheing the hen which lays
> >**> the golden eggs. Knowing link capacity was useful (while it lasted)
> >**> to get the idea of what is more likely to be dropping packets
> >**> on the floor when customers complained.
>
>
