Hi All,
We’re in the market for a handful of field testers for testing L2 and L3 access
circuits across our network. Does anyone have wisdom they can impart? We
ideally need three or four out in the field, with the remote endpoint being
either a static test-head in one of our core PoPs, or al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/01/16 17:27, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
> 10G isn’t as important, because the CPE we’re using (ADVA XG210)
> can do end-to-end throughput testing. Having said that if we found
> the cost of 10G testers wasn’t massively more expensive, we might
>
> Presumably that's RFC2544?
>
> Is there anything stopping you from placing one of those boxes in a DC
> somewhere, configured as a server, and then carrying around another,
> pre-configured as a client? Or even carrying around a (cheaper) 1G
> variant?
I hadn’t thought of that - you might be ri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/01/16 17:56, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
> I hadn’t thought of that - you might be right. I probably
> wouldn’t want our field engineers having to carry around a 1U
> demarcation device and reconfigure it every time for the purposes
> of testing.
I had a similar requirement to you Charlie and tried to tackle it with
a similar solution to yours Tom;
I wanted to have all field engineers equiped with 1G testers to test
every circuit as it is deployed (10G is less common for the average
day to day office install so 10G for every field engineer
> https://github.com/jwbensley/Etherate
That looks great - definitely a useful alternative to iPerf when testing L2
circuits. Thanks!
The main reason we’re looking for handheld testers is really just for
simplicity’s sake - for example we have had issues in the past where not all 1G
ethernet
On 11 January 2016 at 16:46, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
>> https://github.com/jwbensley/Etherate
>
> That looks great - definitely a useful alternative to iPerf when testing L2
> circuits. Thanks!
>
> The main reason we’re looking for handheld testers is really just for
> simplicity’s sake - for e
> On 16 Jan 2016, at 10:56, James Bensley wrote:
> Firstly because I'm trying to partition that all FEs should have Linux
> Windows == bag of shite, one should just be able to plug in your laptop and
> smah out 1Gbps of traffic
I firmly agree - Windows is useless and absolutely not fit for pu
With Windows I can - just too few people know how to optimise platforms these
days (very sad).
Not tried this for a while but when win2012 came out if you tuned Windows (and
you tuned Linux) especially on message size at higher bandwidths you'll see
Linux has almost no performance advantage ove
On 16 Jan 2016 12:24, "Charlie Boisseau" wrote:
> However the fact that our corporate infrastructure is all Microsoft
predicates that field engineer laptops need to be Windows.
Libvirt and qemu/kvm work really well on Linux to virtualise Windows, and
you have the advantage of being able to roll b
On 16 January 2016 at 12:47, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> With Windows I can - just too few people know how to optimise platforms these
> days (very sad).
>
> Not tried this for a while but when win2012 came out if you tuned Windows
> (and you tuned Linux) especially on message size at higher bandwidt
> On 26 Jan 2016, at 17:51, James Bensley wrote:
>
>> On 16 January 2016 at 12:47, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>> With Windows I can - just too few people know how to optimise platforms
>> these days (very sad).
>>
>> Not tried this for a while but when win2012 came out if you tuned Windows
>> (an
On 2016-01-26 18:18, Phil Bartlett wrote:
http://ostinato.org
I had a dabble with it a few months ago and it seems a very flexible
package. I have never used it in anger though
We had a couple of vendor training workshops where they used it to
demonstrate certain traffic handling features.
No
Hi All,
I've just joined the group.
I work for an ISP, our engineers mainly use exfo and jdsu.
Regards,
Evaldas
> On 26 Jan 2016, at 21:25, Andrew Veitch wrote:
>
>> On 2016-01-26 18:18, Phil Bartlett wrote:
>> http://ostinato.org
>>
>> I had a dabble with it a few months ago and it seems
On 26 January 2016 at 18:18, Phil Bartlett wrote:
> Has anyone used ostinato as a tester/traffic generator?
>
> http://ostinato.org
>
> I had a dabble with it a few months ago and it seems a very flexible package.
> I have never used it in anger though
Not for speed or latency testing however I
I have, and it's done what I needed it to do.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Phil
Bartlett
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 12:19 PM
To: James Bensley
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] 1G/10G Layer2/L
16 matches
Mail list logo
