On 14 August 2018 at 10:15, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 14/Aug/18 11:01, James Bensley wrote: > > I am interesting in writing an open source RFC2544 and Y.1564 > compliant tester, I just recently changed jobs and my new company has > hardware testers for RFC2544, Y.1564, RFC6349 and OAM. I think that > XDP is the way forward in the Linux Kernel and now I have access to > hardware testers I can valid the software results against the hardware > testers. > > > While 2544 tests should do fine to prove a link's worth, I believe the more > "idealic" test should be 6349. > > Most complaints from users are due to a lack of understanding about how TCP > works, particularly in LFN scenarios. 6349 focuses on TCP tests, > particularly on the effects of LFN situations, and the realization that in > some cases, window size scaling + parallel TCP sessions is the best way to > prove a link.
Depends what are you testing, physical link/node performance or user QoE. There are cases for both and I agree that both problems require a different hammer. Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
