Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure

From: Elmar K. Bins (no email)
Date: Sat Apr 02 2005 - 06:48:51 EST

  • Next message: Daniel Roesen: "Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure"

     (Randy Bush) wrote:

    > > a.nic.de, 100 packets, 7% packet loss
    > > round-trip min/avg/max = 163.454/199.368/494.708 ms
    > >
    > > c.de.net, 100 packets, 2% packet loss
    > > round-trip min/avg/max = 15.071/46.131/724.957 ms
    > >
    > > z.nic.de, 100 packets, 3% packet loss
    > > round-trip min/avg/max = 180.9/222.723/578.468 ms
    > >
    > > s.de.net, 100 packets, 0% packet loss
    > > round-trip min/avg/max = 184.26/219.786/501.547 ms
    > >
    > > l.de.net, 100 packets, 1% packet loss
    > > round-trip min/avg/max = 170.435/211.573/568.7 ms
    > >
    > > f.nic.de, 100 packets, 5% packet loss
    > > round-trip min/avg/max = 171.717/206.826/489.947 ms
    > >
    > > Overall for DENIC: 3% loss and 15ms / 166ms / 725ms min/avg/max latency.
    > > c.de.net is the one I'd be using, and it gives 2% loss and 46ms latency.
    >
    > c.de.net is the one you WISH your resolver would use. sometimes
    > it might, others it might not.

    Maybe Bill tunes his resolver.

    Nonetheless, two things come to mind: why the heck have you gotten
    such huge RTTs to z? I'd pretty much like to see your traceroute...

    The other: ICMP has been rate-limited. It might not be the way to
    test those locations. An mtr output would be more interesting :)

    Elmar.


  • Next message: Daniel Roesen: "Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD