On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message > <caa93jw4f7iffbtrut5rfsf0wgooaxpuvhdu7jesvq4um17c...@mail.gmail.com> > Dave Taht writes: > >> My point was A), I have seen tons of shapers out there that actually >> prioritize ping over other traffic. I figure everyone here will agree >> that is a terrible practice, but I can certainly say it exists, as it >> is a dumb mistake replicated in tons of shapers I have seen... that >> makes people in marketing happy. >> >> Already put up extensive commentary on that bit of foolishness on >> "wondershaper must die". > > > Its possible to detect such a shaper prioritizing ICMP echo/reply by > doing a an HTTP fetch concurrent with a ping... For an easy (but imprecise) way test the HTTP response times, try Blip - http://gfblip.appspot.com/ (or read about it on github: https://github.com/apenwarr/blip) Blip sends short http requests to a couple hosts and measures the response time of the error pages. > and then and see if the > TCP data packet get significantly delayed relative to the ICMP echo > and echo reply packets. You'd have to do a tcpdump and match the ICMP > echo to the echo reply and see if later the ICMP RTT looks very > different from the TCP RTT. It might be that the SYN and SYN ACK are > not delayed but the plain old TCP date packets are. > > If anyone has a small amount of spare time and wants to put together a > shell script its certainly doable. > > Curtis > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
