[50258] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: debugging packet loss
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andy Dills)
Tue Jul 23 14:37:23 2002
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:36:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net>
To: Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com>
Cc: jlewis@packetnexus.com, <ralph@istop.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/l8KAAAAQAAAAkJ+1nfKqfE+ivNAQ6/WZ1QEAAAAA@isprime.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> ---
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
> Jason Lewis
>
> Isn't ping the first thing to be dropped in favor of other traffic? I
> remember a similar issue and Cisco saying that was the behavior. Don't
> quote me on that.
>
> jas
> ---
>
> Even if it is, that still means that other packets could be lost had
> those pings not been there.
Not neccessarily. It's my experience that ciscos will sometime drop icmp
instead of replying when under load...but that's only for packets directed
at its interfaces.
So, I might see 5% packetloss from the router itself, but 0% packetloss
for everything behind it.
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
