North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
On Mon, 21 Oct 1996 [email protected] wrote: > My point is that I should be able to expect better than a 40-percent > loss rate to *any* point on the Net, at *any* time, from *any* > provider. In fact, I think I should be able to expect less than 5 > percent, and probably less than 1 percent. Honestly, here I think you're smoking something. Whatever it is, it must be REAL good. (And from a coworker, a fellow sysadmin: "There is something to be said for the idiot; if the world was void of idiots, how then would *we* look?" How in the hell can you expect a 100% success rate over (1) a slow modem link, and (2) to *ANY* site on the world. Hell, do you have any *CLUE*--I know you don't--how many sites on the net have servers behind 28.8 links??? How great a packet loss do you expect when you access them?? Is that provider dependent??? *ANY* site--really? - [email protected] - Michael Douglass ) > Back when I actually > touched routers, I used to recommend that people upgrade their > internal networks when loss rates hit 1 percent. Do you have a clue? Due to the structure of the Internet, you are *going* to have loss. It's inherent in the design of the system, and unavoidable. And for people upgrading their internal networks when packet loss hit 1%, woah, sounds like you must work in Sales. > A situation where I have to "shop around" for connectivity depending > on what site I want to talk to that day is just plain unacceptable. No, I beleive the person who recommended that suggested you shop around for the best provider *to start out with*, not bitch, whine, and moan when your connection is not 100% perfect through the one you currently have. > It doesn't look to me as though the loss is being introduced at the > NAPS. If you look at the trace, you'll see that significant loss > starts to appear within Alternet, well after MAE-west. It looks as > though more loss appears inside BBN's network, although it's difficult > to tell because of the already large Alternet loss. Traceroute is *not* a good tool to diagnose packet loss problems. I've had traceroute tell me that a packet loss problem was between two points 3-4 hops "out", when actually it was with the T-1 at my site, the "first hop" in the trace. > Thanks for the suggestion, but I work for Cisco, so ordinarily I have > a Frame Relay connectivity into Cisco's network. This week the > computer I usually use for work is in for service. The Cisco LAN at my > house is air-gapped from the personal LAN, and it would be a real pain > to reconfigure everything, so for the moment I'm coming in to Cisco > over the Net, using my personal service. It's purely temporary. If > I did interactive work under these conditions on a regular basis, I'd > have gone insane long ago. I dont see where a temporary network problem such as you describe should result in a message being sent to the various ISPs and the NANOG list. My suggestion: quit bitching and wait for your FR connection to be restored, or reconfigure your current equipment (if you work at Cisco, it shouldn't be TOO hard). __________________________________________________________________ | bill bradford | system administrator, unix geek, and BOFH | | [email protected] | texas networking, inc. http://www.texas.net | | [email protected] | 210-272-8111 * 512-472-2532 | |------------------------------------------------------------------| | speak for my company? hell, I heardly speak for myself | ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|