North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec
- From: Joe Maimon
- Date: Mon May 07 21:48:09 2007
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.
- References:
- barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec Joe Maimon
- RE: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec Lincoln Dale
- Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec Joe Maimon
- Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec Joe Maimon
- Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec Jo Rhett
- Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec Joe Maimon
- RE: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec Lincoln Dale
- Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec Joe Maimon
|