[162169] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Thu Apr 4 11:29:52 2013
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:29:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <27897.1365088570@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> RFC4989 TCP Extended Statistics MIB. M. Mathis, J. Heffner, R.
> Raghunarayan. May 2007. (Format: TXT=153768 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED
> STANDARD)
>
> Looks like a taker to me. Also, see the work the Web10G group is doing for
> Linux: http://www.web10g.org
RFC 4989 doesn't seem to officially exist. Ah, it's 4898.
Yes, RFC4898 seems to contain a lot of interesting information, question
is how to destill this down to something the user can understand and that
is of interest for a support engineer who might be trying to diagnose the
customer problem.
I agree web10g seems to be of interest as well. I'm going to read through
their documents tomorrow.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
