[32594] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Traceroute versus other performance measurement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Quark Physics)
Wed Nov 29 21:24:49 2000
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:04:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Quark Physics <meuon@highertech.net>
To: Paul Bradford <paul@adelphia.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <00112910161602.26452@merlin.noc.adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10011292157510.6089-100000@home.highertech.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> 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
It's probably a poor tool for all kinds of really good technical reasons,
but "Matts traceroute" aka MTR is useful to me, often shows overstressed
routers or connections... especially when normal traceroute just shows
garbage.
Example screen:
Packets Pings
Hostname %Loss Rcv Snt Last Best Avg
Worst
1. shredder-48-1.higherbandwidth.net 0% 6 6 0 0 1
2. shredder-131-1.higherbandwidth.net 0% 6 6 1 0 1
3. 500.Serial3-11.GW7.ATL1.ALTER.NET 0% 6 6 3 3 5
4. 174.at-1-0-0.XR2.ATL1.ALTER.NET 0% 6 6 3 3 4
5. 194.at-1-0-0.TR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET 0% 6 6 5 4 4
6. 129.at-6-0-0.TR2.NYC9.ALTER.NET 0% 6 6 27 27 27
7. 186.ATM6-0.XR2.BOS1.ALTER.NET 0% 6 6 40 35 36
8. 152.63.16.117 0% 6 6 42 41 46
9. adel-buf2-gw.customer.ALTER.NET 17% 5 6 106 78 110
10. c4700lwa.buf.adelphia.net 0% 5 6 76 76 113
11. 64.8.0.85 0% 5 5 97 97 130
12. ???
13. ???
14. mx1.cdp.adelphia.net 0% 5 5 105 98 119
