nanog mailing list archives
Re: Well done Sprint!
From: "Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen () quadrunner com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:47:27 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Ex-Support Wench wrote: I thought it has a lot of great potential usage; however, I was dismayed at how much traffic it generates. As far as way-alpha goes, it still requires a bit of tuning. I tried the first edition, and it constantly reported my 10 Mbit ethernet as an 83 Mbit cable. While I like the idea that my network equipment might be able to suck the bits right out of the machine, making them move faster, I noticed it needed some accuracy adjustments. (Note: The shortly-thereafter-released second version did fix that and brought the bandwidths down.) /cah ==>What do y'all think of pathchar *as it is now*? How reliable is it for ==>determining actual _available bandwidth_? I thought according to VJ, ==>CAIDA, Cisco and even the NSF it was "way-alpha"? ==>
Current thread:
- Well done Sprint! Neil J. McRae (Nov 12)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Bob Collie (Nov 12)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Josh Beck (Nov 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Well done Sprint! Scott Huddle (Nov 13)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Vadim Antonov (Nov 13)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Steve Blair (Nov 13)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Dorian R. Kim (Nov 13)
- Re: Well done Sprint! SK Miller (Nov 13)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Vadim Antonov (Nov 13)
- Re: Well done Sprint! cll (Nov 13)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Craig A. Huegen (Nov 13)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Network Operations Center (Nov 13)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Henry Kilmer (Nov 14)
- Re: Well done Sprint! Randy Bush (Nov 14)