, 2013 2:35 AM
To: Anoop Ghanwani
Cc: Fan, Peng; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-fan-opsawg-packet-loss-01.txt
There are two other considerations:
1. ICMP packets might follow a different path than the application in the
presence of ECMP
2
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Fan, Peng fanp...@chinamobile.com wrote:
A basic requirement for using ICMP (and other active measurement
approaches) is to let probing traffic and service traffic have the same
drop probability, though it is usually difficult to guarantee this.
It seems like
) as the service
traffic.
Thanks,
Ramki
-Original Message-
From: Fan, Peng [mailto:fanp...@chinamobile.com]
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 8:54 PM
To: ramki Krishnan; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-fan-opsawg-packet-loss-01.txt
Hi Ramki
There are two other considerations:
1. ICMP packets might follow a different path than the application in the
presence of ECMP
2. The ICMP responder might rate limit and drop if it's a router regardless of
the drop characteristics of the path -- RFC 6192.
Thanks,
Thumb typed by Carlos
Of
ramki Krishnan
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 4:23 PM
To: Fan Peng; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-fan-opsawg-packet-loss-01.txt
If this method is to be used on a router, one is
advised to make sure that the ICMP packets experience the same forwarding
: New Version Notification for
draft-fan-opsawg-packet-loss-01.txt
Dear all,
We have updated a complete revision to the I-D regarding packet loss
measurement , and would like to get feedback from you:
IP Packet Loss Rate Measurement Testing and Problem Statement
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft
