[32597] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Traceroute versus other performance measurement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Brown)
Wed Nov 29 23:52:00 2000
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:49:56 -0500
From: Andrew Brown <twofsonet@graffiti.com>
To: Quark Physics <meuon@highertech.net>
Cc: Paul Bradford <paul@adelphia.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001129234956.A27057@noc.untraceable.net>
Reply-To: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10011292157510.6089-100000@home.highertech.net>; from meuon@highertech.net on Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 10:04:07PM -0500
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.
the fact that it does all the probes in parallel, without waiting for
any single probe to time out is definitely a plus.
>Example screen:
>...
try mtr with -r (report mode) and -c (number of probe cycles to send)
to get nice little snapshots.
--
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
