Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck Nether net>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:39:44 -0400


On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:55:26PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:


While rate limiting ICMP can be a good thing, it has to be done
carefully and probably can't be uniform across the backbone. (think of
a common site that gets pinged whenever someone wants to test to see
if their connection went down or if it's just loaded.. Limit ICMP into
them impropperly and lots of folks notice.) Such limiting also has to
undergo periodic tuning as traffic levels increase, traffic patterns
shift, and so forth.

Along these lines, how does this limiting affect akamai or other 'ping for
distance' type localization services? I'd think their data would get
somewhat skewed, right?

        Perhaps they'll come up with a more advanced system of
monitoring?

        probally the best way to do that is to track the download speed
either with cookies (with subnet info) or by subnet only to determine
the best localization.

        With an imperfect system of tracking localization, you will
get imperfect results.

        - jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared () puck nether net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]