[6523] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig Nordin)
Mon Dec 16 23:16:06 1996
From: Craig Nordin <cnordin@vni.net>
To: doleary@cisco.com (dave o'leary)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:05:44 -0500 (EST)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <v03007803aedb604ff9d8@[171.68.13.176]> from "dave o'leary" at Dec 16, 96 03:29:27 pm
Interesting. An ICMP packet dropped when busy. Well, it seems as
if there is only a hair's difference between when an ICMP packet is
dropped and when an IP packet is dropped.
If you are busy, you are busy, right?
I know that I was getting zero packet loss for many many basic routes
this time last year that are now losing packets. I think that a network
is in great shape when the packet loss is at a sheer minimum. Even one
percent packet loss can be felt as substantially more degraded than
perfect transport.
Just like ra.net, I use pings to monitor one aspect of overall performance.
Me and ra.net are not alone.
> >On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> >Many routers drop ICMP packets (ping, traceroute) when busy, or alternate
> >dropping ICMP packets. I know that this behavior occurs when the packets
> >are directed to the specific router, I am not sure if this every occurs
> >for packets passing through. The standby tool ping needs a more reliable
> >replacement for testing end to end packet loss.
