Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec

From: Adrian Chadd (no email)
Date: Mon May 07 2007 - 21:55:25 EDT

  • Next message: Joe Maimon: "Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"

    On Mon, May 07, 2007, Joe Maimon wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Joe Maimon wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >This is obviously not best effort. Best guess would be "managed
    > >bandwidth" differentiated by ip ranges and that the "change" was a
    > >different pool assignment.
    > >
    > >I suspect the stellar icmp echo performance is also intentional.
    >
    > Or it could just be some QOS policing/shaping.

    How asymmetric is the link? I've noticed quite dramatic differences when
    configuring even basic policy maps with WRED on DSL TX-side on CPE (ie,
    the small sized pipe upstream from client to ISP.)

    I can't (normally) control what the ISP is sending to me*, but I can
    try to make the best of the situation. And it can allow pipes to be
    almost fully utilised without massive performance drop-offs at the
    top end.

    Adrian

    * except in instances where I also run the ISP network..


  • Next message: Joe Maimon: "Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD