
nanog mailing list archives
Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:49:35 -0500
Holmes,David A wrote:
runs with good values on all 3 measures (low RTT, little or no packet loss, low jitter with small inter-packet arrival variation) can be deemed not a candidate for bandwidth upgrades. The key to active
Sounds great, unless you don't own the router on the other side of the link which is subject to icmp filtering has a loaded RE, etc. If you pass the traffic through the routers to a reliable server, you'll be monitoring multiple links/routers and not just a single one.
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Paul Jakma (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Aaron J. Grier (Sep 01)
- RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold Holmes,David A (Sep 01)
- RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold Deepak Jain (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Jack Bates (Sep 01)
- RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold Holmes,David A (Sep 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Kevin Graham (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Jack Bates (Sep 02)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Richard A Steenbergen (Sep 02)
- RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold Frank Bulk (Sep 07)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Aaron J. Grier (Sep 01)