- Test - lists.nanog.org

WAN/LAN delay simulation
by Peter E. Giza 01 Jul '97

01 Jul '97

netheads, Sorry to change the current thread, but does anyone know of a piece of freeware that will simulate delays across a WAN/LAN connection? Basically something that would allow a dual-homed workstation act as a router that one can program to do nasty things to packets. I am not looking for random packet generation, rather I want to test the effects of http traffic and the like over a slow and dirty link (no I don't have a link to one of the Boardwatch worst list #%^>). TIA -pete

2 1

Lots of UUNet outages and instabilities
by M. David Leonard 01 Jul '97

01 Jul '97

Speaking of UUNet problems, we just came back after three hours in a black hole....aaargh! David M. David Leonard, Director public Internet for western Massachusetts ShaysNet.COM Daniel Shays - Shays' Rebellion (1786-7) mdl(a)equinox.ShaysNet.COM affordable rural access 413/772-2923 109 59 509

2 1

Re: Lots of UUNet outages and instabilities
by fehnb＠jerseycape.net 01 Jul '97

01 Jul '97

Feel lucky, we there for 4 hours last week.... Sigh.... > > Speaking of UUNet problems, we just came back after three hours >in a black hole....aaargh! > > David > >M. David Leonard, Director public Internet for western Massachusetts >ShaysNet.COM Daniel Shays - Shays' Rebellion (1786-7) >mdl(a)equinox.ShaysNet.COM affordable rural access >413/772-2923 109 59 509 > > > Robert J. Fehn Sr.,President and CEO Senior Systems Engineer, Jersey Cape Information Systems Inc. "Access, Engineering, Microwave Links, Consulting, Design."

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 01 Jul '97

01 Jul '97

2 1

RE: WAN/LAN delay simulation
by Dan Dale 01 Jul '97

01 Jul '97

Pete, Hope this link helps. http://www.nlanr.net/Caidants/meastools.html#ism Dan Dale - Sr. System Engineer Exodus Communications Inc -- Seattle -----Original Message----- From: Peter E. Giza [SMTP:giza@adsmart.net] Sent: Monday, June 30, 1997 4:04 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: WAN/LAN delay simulation netheads, Sorry to change the current thread, but does anyone know of a piece of freeware that will simulate delays across a WAN/LAN connection? Basically something that would allow a dual-homed workstation act as a router that one can program to do nasty things to packets. I am not looking for random packet generation, rather I want to test the effects of http traffic and the like over a slow and dirty link (no I don't have a link to one of the Boardwatch worst list #%^>). TIA -pete

1 0

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better te
by Danny McPherson 01 Jul '97

01 Jul '97

let's see .. 300 responses from 75 people pointing out the same ~3 flaws in jack's methodology. 'bout time for a new thread? -danny

1 0

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better te
by Jack Rickard 01 Jul '97

01 Jul '97

I probably don't agree that it is not a reliable way to draw conclusions about backbone performance. The index has drawn criticism because it points up winners and losers and that's about it. There is no way to do this without criticism, and indeed it should be part of the process. The end user experience will reflect the sum of that, plus dialup variables which we simply do not include in this work. Jack Rickard ---------- > From: Mark Borchers <markb(a)infi.net> > To: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better te > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 6:09 AM > > Jack, > > I think you've stated for yourself the reason that this Index has > drawn some criticism. > > By it's name it purports to be an index of backbone speed or backbone > congestion or a combination of the above. > > Not only is it not really an index of these items, it could further > be argued that there's not even any reliable way to draw conclusions > about backbone performance from the Keynote measurements. As you > say, there are many other variables. So why not give this thing a > name that reflects it's real identity as an end-to-end test from the > Keynote Perspective Agent locations to various WWW servers. > > > This assumes that you consider web server location and web server > > performance to NOT be a part of overall network performance. Our view > > steps back a bit from that. The majority of traffic would appear to be > > webcentric. From an end users perspective, what does a web site on a > > specific network look like and how does that compare to a web site on > > another network? There are ENDLESS variables contributing to that > > including intercity links, hub architecture, host hardware, host software, > > peering, connectivity points with other networks, transit agreements, type > > of routers, ATM switching (or not). All contribute. We think most people > > notice Internet performance (or lack thereof) while viewing world wide web > > pages.

3 2

Re: Plethora of UUnet outages and instabilities
by Jeffrey S. Curtis 01 Jul '97

01 Jul '97

Wayne Bouchard <web(a)typo.org> writes: }Thats my point. It often ISN'T easy. For example, say you've got a }7505 in one spot and find its getting killed. You can't put an rsp4 in }a 7505. [...] Eh? CISCO7505/4 Cisco 7505 5-Slot, 1 CyBus, 1RSP4, Single Power Supply, $xx,xxx Jeff -- Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager Argonne National Laboratory | Email: curtis(a)anl.gov 9700 South Cass Avenue, ECT-221 | Voice: 630/252-1789 Argonne, IL 60439 | Fax: 630/252-9689

1 0

Size is not everything
by Sean Donelan 30 Jun '97

30 Jun '97

Reports continue filtering in. After scoring number one in the Keynote/Boardwatch index, Compuserve gets slamed by the Butler Group, UK study. http://www.mmp.co.uk/mmp/informer/netnews/HTM/630n1w.htm Butler Group also continues the tradition of providing little information on their web site which would allow an outside evaluation of their results. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

2 1

Re: Internet Backbone Index
by William Allen Simpson 30 Jun '97

30 Jun '97

Jack, this is a really large list, with a lot of backbiters and pontificators. My usual policy is to collect responses for a day, and then reply to only one or two, rather than trying to answer each message individually. That would have helped avoid 100 messages on this topic. > From: Joe Shaw <jshaw(a)insync.net> > There are enough marketing reports and half witted articles and reports > out their to confuse the average consumer. I'd think that you'd be > ashamed to be part of them, instead of providing a service that's closer > to providing what you intentionally planned to do. > Actually, I'm a bit ashamed of the NANOG response. First of all, however you all might dislike it, our end users' perception of performance _is_ based on web download speeds these days. And the users don't distinguish network load as opposed to server load. Maybe you _think_ the server choices were poor, but as far as I can tell, you don't have enough data to determine that. As to criticizing the methodology, why haven't you (collectively) proposed a better methodology for measuring web access? Boardwatch, from its history, comes from the user download experience. One cannot blame them if they do their best to measure what they see. One could instead offer to help them to update their next article. Second of all, there really are network performance problems. It matters not at all if RSA (a problem I've had this week) has a powerful WWW server, when I cannot get to it reliably because WillowSprings and SanFrancisco are dropping packets like crazy. So far, only one response has noted the current ongoing efforts at ISI, LBL, Merit, NLANR, and others, to develop good network performance measurement techniques and metrics. I urge Boardwatch to help fund them, and to regularly publish the results! How many of you naysayers have actually participated in and help fund the "scientific" studies? Put your money where your mouth is! WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

2 1