nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ping flooding
From: avg () ncube com (Vadim Antonov)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 12:05:13 +0800
You need to have _very_ different path parameters to cause TCP noticeable problems (and then if one of the paths is that bad you're screwed up anyway). Most of asymmetrical paths are quite "symmetrical" parameter-wise. --vadim Vern,
(ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/routing.SIGCOMM.ps.Z). I really wanted to come up with some reason why asymmetric routing has serious implications for TCP performance, but wasn't able to. I guess this is a good thing,
Maybe in a perfect world, but given that all ISPs are not created equal, it is usually the case that the two paths don't have the same latency and packet loss characteristics. Jeff - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Ping flooding, (continued)
- Re: Ping flooding Per Gregers Bilse (Jul 11)
- Routing flaps, was Re: Ping flooding Forrest W. Christian (Jul 12)
- Re: Ping flooding Bradley J. Passwaters (Jul 11)
- Re: Ping flooding Paul Ferguson (Jul 11)
- Re: Ping flooding Alan Hannan (Jul 11)
- Re: Ping flooding Jerry Anderson (Jul 12)
- Re: Ping flooding Vadim Antonov (Jul 11)
- Re: Ping flooding Vern Paxson (Jul 11)
- Re: Ping flooding Jeffrey Burgan (Jul 12)
- Re: Ping flooding Vern Paxson (Jul 12)
- Re: Ping flooding Vadim Antonov (Jul 12)