On 1.12.2013 11:49, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Using a 1/10th of a second interval is rather anti-social. >>> I know we rate-limit ICMP traffic down, and such a >>> short interval would be detected as attack traffic, >>> and treated as such. >> For what it is worth, I used to think the same, until I saw several >> providers themselves suggest that 1000 packets should be sent, with >> the 0.1 s interval. So, this is considered normal and appropriate >> nowadays. > > matthew is correct > > go back to your old way of thinking. while some providers may tolerate > fast pings, few if any grown-ups do. and even thouse who think they do > have routing engines which consider all pings as low priority rubbish to > be dropped when there is any real work to do. >
From router control-plane perspective, rate-limiting should be always expected and result evaluation should take that in account. From router perspective, packet with TTL=1 is handled typically in software, in CPU with limited power (compared to modern hardware) and it's not a primary job of router to answer to each TTL=1 packet - that's correct view. But, provided reports shows ALSO end-to-end packet loss, which never will be caused by control-plane policers on transit routers, these packets will never hit router CPU. And there we talk about basic network neutrality - everyone should treat all data equally, independently of protocol used for data transport. Daniel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
