I was wondering if the wonderful members of this list could
provide their opinions regarding the traceroute below. I have contacted sprint
several times regarding this issue and their noc keeps coming back with no
trouble found. Am I barking up the wrong up the wrong tree?
Im
Joe,
You are, in fact, barking up the wrong tree. The question should be ³when I
test against my destination, am I seeing packet loss and latency?².
Traceroute is not a useful tool for determining the state of an intermediate
router on a path. ICMP TTL-Exceeded messages are rate limited and not
percent (997/1000), round-trip min/avg/max = 60/61/416 ms
Joe Marr
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Golding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint Help
Joe Marr wrote:
the only thing I can find wrong is packetloss and
latency between hops 7 and 8.
It has nothing to do with your issue. The very fact that the next hops
do not exhibit the same problem shows that the router is processing
packets fine. This is not uncommon, might be caused by our
In a message written on Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:15:19PM -0500, Joe Marr wrote:
I have a customer with a large citrix farm at hop 15. The customer has
several remote offices, one as far away as Japan. One of their offices has
been experiencing slow performance with their citrix connections. It's
Leo Bicknell wrote
Your problem is right here:
14 urish-pitts-gw.centrepc.net (67.97.250.166) 100 msec *
100 msec NT in many configs defaults to a TCP Window size
of 8k, other NT and Server 2000 default to 16k.
This seems premature as a conclusion to me. If they don't have issues
with Japan
In a message written on Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 11:08:21AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
Leo Bicknell wrote
Your problem is right here:
14 urish-pitts-gw.centrepc.net (67.97.250.166) 100 msec *
100 msec NT in many configs defaults to a TCP Window size
of 8k, other NT and Server 2000 default to
