On 15-Apr-09, at 1:30 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
This may or may not be relevant, but depending on how much extra
latency
the 12008 introduces you might still have a client side limitation
doing
TCP. Reasonable TCP window sizes and effective sender side congestion
control are needed.
Good advice. Didn't consider that.
How much latency end-to-end in the setup with/without the 12008?
12ms (Toronto to New York and back) with the 12008. Haven't hair
pinned a port on the New York Fore yet, so can't determine latency
without the 12008.
Making IPerf use a defined load in a UDP stream (e.g. 100 Mbps) and
then
measuring the loss would overcome this limitation of course.
I'd happily test that, however we don't have a machine on-site in New
York, unless you (or anyone else, for that matter ;)) happen to have a
box hanging off NYIIX that I could dump traffic to over our NYIIX link.
Regards,
Peter
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
