|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Traceroute versus other performance measurement
Mark Borchers wrote: > Presumably you're asking if it's a good tool to measure > *available* bandwidth or lack thereof, i.e. congestion and > its byproducts of packet loss and increased latency. > > No, it isn't! > > - Congestion resulting from asymmetric paths can be misinterpreted > through traceroute. > > - Cases where ICMP performance with respect to the routers > themselves is significantly lower than throughput of > production traffic will often skew results. > > Having said that, where traceroutes suggest a POSSIBLE problem > on my own network, I'd check further. However, I would never > ask the operator of another network to troubleshoot solely on > the basis of traceroute output. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Paul Bradford [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:08 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Traceroute versus other performance measurement > > > > > > I need help with a reality/sanity check. Traceroute is a > > > good tool for > > > checking for routing type problems (loops). Does anyone feel > > > it's a good tool > > > to use for testing "bandwidth".... > > Also, on some routers, traceroute requires going through the "slow path" (i.e., the router CPU), and show delays much larger than actual operational packets will encounter. -- Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [email protected] [email protected] http://www.on-the-i.com http://www.buzzwaves.com
|