[32573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Traceroute versus other performance measurement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (grisha@verio.net)
Wed Nov 29 11:26:27 2000
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:22:00 -0500 (EST)
From: <grisha@verio.net>
To: Ping Pan <pingpan@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: Paul Bradford <paul@adelphia.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.4.30.0011291105410.7097-100000@bourbon.cs.columbia.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10011291120270.9151-100000@vienna.verio.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
FYI - there is anether program, available with source (unlike pathchar)
called pchar:
http://www.employees.org/~bmah/Software/pchar/
Grisha
Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Ping Pan wrote:
>
> Have you tried pathchar? It's pretty much the same as traceroute, but it
> is to estimate e2e bandwidth. When it first came out, I tried it. It
> didn't give good results. I heard it had been enhanced since. Go to
> ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/pathchar/
>
> - Ping
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Paul Bradford wrote:
>
> >
> > I have been reading NANOG posts for probably 2 years now.. this is my 1st post.
> >
> > I need help with a reality/sanity check. Traceroute is a good tool for
> > checking for routing type problems (loops). Does anyone feel it's a good tool
> > to use for testing "bandwidth".... My obvious answer is it isn't a good tool
> > for that.... One problem I see is that the way traceroute works, if a
> > transport mixes media between say Ethernet to LANE and back to Ethernet you
> > give room for Destination unreachable responses from a trace route because you
> > have to to packet switching medias with a fast cell switched media in
> > between.... packets less than 64k (like traceroute info) are easily lost in the
> > conversion from ethernet to LANE.
> >
> > Does this sound right?
> > Thanks,
> > Paul A. Bradford
> >
> >
>
>
