[167101] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Europe-to-US congestion and packet loss on he.net network,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Sun Dec 1 05:49:20 2013
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 19:49:03 +0900
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131201091154.GA4999@Cns.Cns.SU>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> Using a 1/10th of a second interval is rather anti-social.
>> I know we rate-limit ICMP traffic down, and such a
>> short interval would be detected as attack traffic,
>> and treated as such.
> For what it is worth, I used to think the same, until I saw several
> providers themselves suggest that 1000 packets should be sent, with
> the 0.1 s interval. So, this is considered normal and appropriate
> nowadays.
matthew is correct
go back to your old way of thinking. while some providers may tolerate
fast pings, few if any grown-ups do. and even thouse who think they do
have routing engines which consider all pings as low priority rubbish to
be dropped when there is any real work to do.
randy
