-----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 > elect for one of the testers to be 10G capable.
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? Once we had it working at $oldjob the Ciena 3916 did this rather well for 1G connections (with a Ciena 3930 on a 10G port setup as a server) and where we had them on site, it replaced a lot of hauling Linux boxes to site (to run iperf on). Perhaps not as shiny as dedicated test equipment, but then I've never had the luxury of having any of that. :) - -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWj/QUAAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ6ck8IAI6t51ad11NZYA9AEJeTFv1e I68Y6kfvF8BL46iLsXzhVlKf2tQVhJkhkH9+QLKYSxoRVUCSrzY5oge0IvRaW3na C7LJBsJIORvLPakBIPK5xn66IdVFgba8yjulAtYdpEPTSRTRQtHwqU+Uvls2Vq5Q l+JGcQzQ3js1j1jYfp7e1irgqVXf8dWACQkMweKDBPF8Q3GTFQ1a5PTwhM5QJ7CX mCm+xCc9gDUZvLFgJB5mDZ4UpEah0QAae/OUK6tDP2dDVQS9dQxc1YDvwWOScWtm 6KAocMPx0/O2LzHqXAnoVzidNyOV0vW931bFm2OMX/IzHujLGkcXULtIg0w6UQ0= =CyGc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
