This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[atlas] Paris-traceroute variations
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Paris-traceroute variations
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Paris-traceroute variations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Philip Homburg
philip.homburg at ripe.net
Mon Jun 30 12:11:31 CEST 2014
On 2014/06/27 22:31 , Randy Bush wrote: > apologies. i guess it was in the paper not the preso, uppr right of > page 3 of > > C. Pelsser, L. Cittadini, S. Vissicchio, and R. Bush, From Paris to > Tokyo: On the Suitability of Ping to Measure Latency, 2013 Internet > Measurement Conference. > <http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2013/papers/imc125s-pelsserA.pdf> > > the intuition is that it is a function of the richness of the path > diversity. > > perhaps a tunable? The way it looks to me is that that section argues that you need more than 6 and that 32 is enough. It doesn't really say that 16 is not enough :-) But I just created an internal ticket to have the limit raised to 64. That should be ample for anybody who wants to experiment. Philip
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Paris-traceroute variations
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Paris-traceroute variations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]