nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent service
From: "William B. Norton" <wbn () equinix com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:54:39 -0700
At 10:31 AM 9/20/2002 -0400, David Diaz wrote:
The only negative routing comments Ive heard are complaints about extra hop counts.
Dave - I know you know this and you are referring to an issue that both of us have heard....
The hidden assumption here is that the extra hops implies worse performance. This is perception rather than real. One could quite easily put in place a VPN or MPLS substrate and make all destinations appear "one hop away" without changing the underlying technology or performance of the network.
A network application with clear latency/jitter/packet loss characteristics would be a more effective way to evaluate network fitness. I suspect what really happens is
a) the is a performance problem somewhere in the path b) a traceroute is donec) the traceroute is misinterpreted - "the problem is packets go all over the place!"
d) the misinterpretation is generalized to "more hops is bad" from what I've seen anyway. Bill
Current thread:
- Cogent service Arie Vayner (Sep 19)
- Re: Cogent service Paul Vixie (Sep 19)
- Re: Cogent service Ralph Doncaster (Sep 19)
- Re: Cogent service David Diaz (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service William B. Norton (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service David Diaz (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service Petri Helenius (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service Petri Helenius (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service David Diaz (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Sep 24)
- Re: Cogent service Ralph Doncaster (Sep 19)
- Re: Cogent service Paul Vixie (Sep 19)
- RE: Cogent service Mark Borchers (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service Stephen Stuart (Sep 20)
- Re: Cogent service Vadim Antonov (Sep 20)