Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Randy Bush]

> At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the
> physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States
> is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking about.
> The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no matter
> how crowded the vendor meet is. There are pockets of isolated/niche success
> and its great to see technology implemented in such ways, RFCs being
> drafted, etc., but jeez guys, the real issue at stake here is how in the
> hell we are all going to work past the bureaucratic constraints of our
> arguably humble positions to transparently superimpose something that will
> enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of
> a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified
> infrastructure. This post in itself obviates our incapacity to handle our
> own infrastructure, and while I believe discussing this is of the utmost
> importance I have to point out, first and foremost, that the highest
> priority is a level playing field. I know at least some of you can really
> understand that and I hope it drive some of your sleeping points home a bit
> so you can wake up in the morning and get something right.

life can be simple.  i moved to a first world country, japan.  $35/mo
for real 100/100, and i could get faster, just don't need it for a
couple of laptops.

hope y'all are having fun in duopoly jail.

randy

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Will Clayton]

Now just imagine that people inside the big firewall could tell you how they
engineered multi-gig FTTTVs.

At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the
physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States
is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking about.
The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no matter
how crowded the vendor meet is. There are pockets of isolated/niche success
and its great to see technology implemented in such ways, RFCs being
drafted, etc., but jeez guys, the real issue at stake here is how in the
hell we are all going to work past the bureaucratic constraints of our
arguably humble positions to transparently superimpose something that will
enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of
a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified
infrastructure. This post in itself obviates our incapacity to handle our
own infrastructure, and while I believe discussing this is of the utmost
importance I have to point out, first and foremost, that the highest
priority is a level playing field. I know at least some of you can really
understand that and I hope it drive some of your sleeping points home a bit
so you can wake up in the morning and get something right.

-Will

Ok I will never post here again. Gnight...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > actually, the killer here is PMTU... there is almost no way to
> > effectively utilize the BW when the MTU is locked to 1500 bytes.
>
> and the reality, e.g. ntt b-flets, is often pppoe v4-only, which is
> lower.
>
> randy
>
>

Re: DNS query analyzer

[Stefan Fouant]

DNStop is a real good tool for what it does.  It's an exceptionally useful tool 
and probably at the top of my list for deciphering DoS attacks targetting or 
amplifying against DNS resolvers.  But for RTT and timeouts, errr not so good.

Sorry for the top post. Stupid Blackberry...

Regards,

Stefan Fouant
www.shortestpathfirst.com
--Original Message--
From: jul
To: Joseph Jackson
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: DNS query analyzer
Sent: Dec 2, 2009 12:47 AM

Joseph Jackson wrote on 01/12/09 01:06:
> Anyone know of a tool that can take a pcap file from wireshark that was used 
> to collect dns queries and then spit out statistics about the queries such as 
> RTT and timeouts?

You also have DNSTop

http://dns.measurement-factory.com/tools/dnstop/

Best regards,

Julien



Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Re: DNS query analyzer

[jul]

Joseph Jackson wrote on 01/12/09 01:06:

Anyone know of a tool that can take a pcap file from wireshark that was used to 
collect dns queries and then spit out statistics about the queries such as RTT 
and timeouts?


You also have DNSTop

http://dns.measurement-factory.com/tools/dnstop/

Best regards,

Julien

Re: DNS query analyzer

[Aaron Glenn]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Tony Finch  wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Joseph Jackson wrote:
>>
>> Anyone know of a tool that can take a pcap file from wireshark that was
>> used to collect dns queries and then spit out statistics about the
>> queries such as RTT and timeouts?
>
> I don't know if it'll do exactly what you want, but have a look at
> https://www.dns-oarc.net/tools/dnscap

dnscap paired with dpkt can quickly and elegantly accomplish what you
desire; if you know python (:

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Randy Bush]

> actually, the killer here is PMTU... there is almost no way to
> effectively utilize the BW when the MTU is locked to 1500 bytes.

and the reality, e.g. ntt b-flets, is often pppoe v4-only, which is
lower.

randy

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Jared Mauch]

On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Paul Wall wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White  wrote:
>> All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
>> is a good way to future proof your plant.
> 
> I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber.

I'll settle with fiber within 2km of my home right now.

If people have recommendations for FTTH/GPON/Whatnot let me know.

Right now, I'm thinking stuff like this is cool:

http://www.provantage.com/zyxel-mc1000sfp~7ZYXS00C.htm

I suspect one could do interesting things with BX10/LX10 SFPs. (Likely not with 
cisco though).

- Jared

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Chris Hills]

On 01/12/09 20:06, Byron Hicks wrote:
> These were the numbers presented at an Internet2 meeting about the 4k
> testing happening between UCSD and UW.   I'm not sure what compression
> algorithm they were using for the test.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/09/super_hi_vision.html

"The Italian broadcaster, RAI, demonstrated satellite broadcasting of
SHV at 140 Mbit/s from Turin to IBC."

Super Hi-Vision has a resolution of 4320x7860 (and also carries 22.2
channel sound). IIRC the video codec used was Dirac.

>From the Dirac website:-

"In our first experiments, we managed to get excellent picture quality
at 128Mb/s, which sounds huge but is equivalent to just 4Mb/s for HDTV."

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Scott Brown/Clack/ESD]

> You could deploy 2 or 3 strands and get more bandwidth to the customer,
> using perhaps less expensive hardware, or you could maintain fewer
strands
> in the ground and depend on equipment manufactures to maintain an
adequate
> growth in bandwidth capabilities.
>
> Neither approach is going to work for everyone.
>
> --
> Dan White
>

At my previous job we were deploying a hybrid system - a mix of active and
PON depending on the requirements of the customer.

For the active systems it wasn't homerun fiber back to the main CO - we had
a nice ring of fiber to key locations in the City and then we would place a
ped where the spurs would connect to.

Top that off with a CISCO Wireless Mesh overlay and no matter what speed
and mobility you needed you could get it somehow... Our only limit (at the
time I left) was upstream to the Internet.

--Scott

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[bmanning]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 08:07:42PM +, James Bensley wrote:
> I'm wondering why despite all this comparatively magical speed
> increase we have seen over the last decade, with 10 times better on
> the horizon, we the customer ever get a 1:1 speed ratio?

speed kills...

actually, the killer here is PMTU... there is almost no
way to effectively utilize the BW when the MTU is locked to
1500 bytes.

--bill

> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> James ;)
> 
> Charles de Gaulle  - "The better I get to know men, the more I find
> myself loving dogs." -
> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/charles_de_gaulle.html

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[bmanning]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 02:33:20PM -0500, Paul Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White  wrote:
> > All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
> > is a good way to future proof your plant.
> 
> I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber.
> 
> Drive Slow,
> Paul Wall

nifty... my own fiber pair - and I'll run 32 lambdas on each...
(can I has kewl new rare-earth glass ... so I can run 100G per lambda? 
- plz?)

--bill

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Dan White]

On 01/12/09 14:33 -0500, Paul Wall wrote:

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White  wrote:

All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
is a good way to future proof your plant.


I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber.


In the case of PON, WDM is used to dedicate wavelengths on the strand for
different purposes - ingress, egress, RF overlay (as someone else
mentioned), TDM voice etc.

You could deploy 2 or 3 strands and get more bandwidth to the customer,
using perhaps less expensive hardware, or you could maintain fewer strands
in the ground and depend on equipment manufactures to maintain an adequate
growth in bandwidth capabilities.

Neither approach is going to work for everyone.

--
Dan White

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[James Bensley]

I'm wondering why despite all this comparatively magical speed
increase we have seen over the last decade, with 10 times better on
the horizon, we the customer ever get a 1:1 speed ratio?

-- 
Regards,
James ;)

Charles de Gaulle  - "The better I get to know men, the more I find
myself loving dogs." -
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/charles_de_gaulle.html

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Paul Wall]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Dan White  wrote:
> All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
> is a good way to future proof your plant.

I would argue that every customer is entitled to duplex fiber.

Drive Slow,
Paul Wall

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Justin Shore]

Dan White wrote:

All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
is a good way to future proof your plant.

However, there are some advantages to GPON - particularly if you're
deploying high bandwidth video services. PON ONTs share 2.4Gb/s of
bandwidth downstream, which means you can support more than a gig of video
on each PON, if deploying in dense mode.


That's true but I'd hope it wouldn't be needed.  A single residence 
wouldn't get anywhere near needing 1Gbps of video bandwidth.  Even with 
MPEG2 and 50 HD STBs @ 19Mbps that would still leave 50Mbps for 
Internet.  I don't know of anyone needing that much BW for video.


PON does present the possibility of doing and RF Overlay though which 
makes traditional RF possible.  That's something our CATV guy talks 
about often.  The RF wavelength gets spun off at the NID and outputted 
as traditional RF on coax.  I've heard of similar things with limited 
WDM from the egress side of the active Ethernet switch to the NID but I 
haven't seen any in production.



Another big advantage is in CO equipment. A 4-PON blade in a cabinet is
going to support on the order of 256 ONTs.


This is something that I don't think many people have dealt with before. 
 In our rural Active FTTH environment we're not hubbing all the fiber 
out of COs.  Most of it hubs back to cabinets on the side of the road 
and from there gets put on an Ethernet ring which ultimately terminates 
in the COs.  Because of this while we may have tens of thousands of 
strands out in the field we don't have anywhere near that amount in a 
single cabinet or CO.  A lot of people think that Active FTTH means 
home-running ever strand back to a single CO and that's not generally 
the case.  LECs usually deploy a distributed model with aggregation out 
in the field in cabinets or huts and then backhaul that back to the COs. 
 This also means that fewer individual fiber ports get served out of 
any one location.  So a cabinet might have 3-4 blades in individual 
chassis or it might have a 13-slot chassis with as many slots populated 
to meet the demand.  It seems to work well.  I see what you mean though 
with the port density and space savings.  I think most deployments 
manage to avoid the hassle but I can see where extremely dense locations 
could run into trouble.


Good points
  Justin

RE: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Deepak Jain]

> If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used
> dialup, you had suggested that ISPs would be putting in gigabit
> services
> to homes, people would have laughed.  Yet today, here we are talking
> about gig feeds.  I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10
> years from now...
> 

s/be using/have access to/

One could make the argument that when we were doing dial-up over POTS the % 
utilization vs port speed was higher than today with packet switching to the 
curb. People have been lamenting the lack of for-profit apps that will actually 
each up these 100+ mb/s residential pipes (the "killer app"). 

One could further argue that the talk of gigabit pipes to the home has been 
ushered in by the cost-effectiveness of gigabit ethernet over SONET or other 
technologies and this is why we are seeing such a massive increase in the port 
speeds to customers. As a percentage of pipe available (discounting things like 
kiddie's using Torrent), I wouldn't be surprised to see that percentage drop. 
(Residential broadband folks chime in please).

Deepak

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Byron Hicks]

These were the numbers presented at an Internet2 meeting about the 4k
testing happening between UCSD and UW.   I'm not sure what compression
algorithm they were using for the test.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Chris Adams  wrote:
> Once upon a time, Byron Hicks  said:
>> 4k video feeds (the new High Def):
>>
>> compressed: 1Gb/s
>
> ??
>
> Current over-the-air HD (at a max of 1080i) is up to 19 megabits per
> second (and most don't run it that high).  Most cable systems compress
> it more.  4k video is roughly 8 times the pixels than 1080i, but is
> typically going to be compressed with better algorithms (MPEG4 is
> roughly half the size of MPEG2), which would mean 4k video (at TV
> quality) would be around 100 megabits per second.
>
> --
> Chris Adams 
> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
> I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
>
>



-- 
Byron L. Hicks
University of Texas System
512-377-9857
AIM: byronhicks

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Michael Holstein]

>  I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10 years from now...

100% of it (if you let us).

Cheers,

Michael Holstein
Cleveland State University

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Byron Hicks  said:
> 4k video feeds (the new High Def):
> 
> compressed: 1Gb/s

??

Current over-the-air HD (at a max of 1080i) is up to 19 megabits per
second (and most don't run it that high).  Most cable systems compress
it more.  4k video is roughly 8 times the pixels than 1080i, but is
typically going to be compressed with better algorithms (MPEG4 is
roughly half the size of MPEG2), which would mean 4k video (at TV
quality) would be around 100 megabits per second.

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, JC Dill wrote:

If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used 
dialup, you had suggested that ISPs would be putting in gigabit services 
to homes, people would have laughed.  Yet today, here we are talking 
about gig feeds. I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10 
years from now...


First commercial gige service available to residential here in Sweden was 
a few years after 2000 (be it only a few houses), I'd say at least 10% of 
swedish households can buy at least 100/10 service for less than 50USD a 
month and it's been like that for 5+ years (before that it was 10/10 for 
the same money).


Active ethernet means you upgrade CO and CPE and you can do whatever you 
need on the fiber strand to that household, whereas PON you need to 
upgrade everything that shares that passive stretch sharing 64-128 
households.


Star networks (=active ethernet in the FTTH world) is the way to go, it's 
superior in the vast majority of use cases.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Byron Hicks]

4k video feeds (the new High Def):

compressed: 1Gb/s
uncompressed: 9Gb/s

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:39 PM, JC Dill  wrote:
> Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>
>> You don't need to supply more than a gig per household,
>
> "640K ought to be enough for anybody. "  (oft mis-attributed to Bill Gates)
>  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
>
> If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used
> dialup, you had suggested that ISPs would be putting in gigabit services to
> homes, people would have laughed.  Yet today, here we are talking about gig
> feeds.  I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10 years from now...
>
> jc
>
>



-- 
Byron L. Hicks
University of Texas System
512-377-9857
AIM: byronhicks

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[JC Dill]

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:


You don't need to supply more than a gig per household, 


"640K ought to be enough for anybody. "  (oft mis-attributed to Bill 
Gates)  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates


If, 10 years ago (1999) when most internet-connected homes still used 
dialup, you had suggested that ISPs would be putting in gigabit services 
to homes, people would have laughed.  Yet today, here we are talking 
about gig feeds.  I wonder how much bandwidth homes will be using 10 
years from now...


jc

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Dan White wrote:


However, there are some advantages to GPON - particularly if you're
deploying high bandwidth video services. PON ONTs share 2.4Gb/s of
bandwidth downstream, which means you can support more than a gig of video
on each PON, if deploying in dense mode.


You don't need to supply more than a gig per household, so active gige (or 
100meg) is enough to feed the household with their broadcast video needs. 
So yes, you will need 10GE to the node and 100/1000 to each household do 
this this kind of video.


PON only makes sense with low take-rates and high per-truckroll costs when 
I did the business case last time.



Another big advantage is in CO equipment. A 4-PON blade in a cabinet is
going to support on the order of 256 ONTs.


But you lose out on the CPEs, at least historically these were much more 
expensive than the 100FX/TX media converters available in the market.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Justin Shore  wrote:
> Luke Marrott wrote:
>> I'm wondering what everyones thoughts are in regards to FTTH using Active
>> Ethernet or Passive. I work for a FTTH Provider that has done Active
>> Ethernet on a few networks so I'm always biased in discussions, but I
>> don't
>> know anyone with experience in PON.
>
> Active is the way to go.  Passive is merely a stepping stone on the way to
> active.  Passive only makes sense (in some cases) if you are 1) fiber poor
> and 2) not doing a greenfield deployment.  If you have the fiber to work
> with or if you are building a FTTH plant from scratch go with active.  The
> only real proponents of PONs are the RBOCs who are exceedingly cheap, slow
> to react, and completely unable to think ahead (ie, putting in an abundance
> of fiber for future use instead of just enough to get by) and some MSOs who
> don't dread and loathe shared network mediums like CATV and PON (whereas
> those from a networking background would never ever pick such a technology).

Justin,

The suburban area where I live, mostly detached homes, has a service
density of around 1500 to 2000 residences per square mile. Practically
speaking, one or two dedicated fibers per residence at that density
means you're not going to get a 5 mile radius from your powered
equipment. Pi *  5^2 * 2000 residences * 2 strands per residence =
300,000 strands of fiber.

So you're going to deploy powered equipment to one hell of a lot of
non-customer field locations. Since most of those locations are not
carefully conditioned computer rooms, you're going to pay more for
ruggedized equipment too.

In that scenario, PON cuts the number of field locations in which you
have to maintain non-CPE powered equipment by an order of magnitude or
more. Perhaps even to zero. This improves system reliability and
yields a rather substantial savings on maintenance cost over time. Pi
* 5^2 * 2000 residences * 1 strand / 16 residences per strand = 9,800
strands of fiber, a much more manageable number.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Dan White]

On 01/12/09 10:43 -0600, Justin Shore wrote:
Active is the way to go.  Passive is merely a stepping stone on the way  
to active.  Passive only makes sense (in some cases) if you are 1) fiber  
poor and 2) not doing a greenfield deployment.  If you have the fiber to  
work with or if you are building a FTTH plant from scratch go with  
active.  The only real proponents of PONs are the RBOCs who are  
exceedingly cheap, slow to react, and completely unable to think ahead  
(ie, putting in an abundance of fiber for future use instead of just  
enough to get by) and some MSOs who don't dread and loathe shared  
network mediums like CATV and PON (whereas those from a networking  
background would never ever pick such a technology).


Few vendors will ever admit that they interop with another vendor's gear  
though.  They don't want you to buy their optical switches (which have a  
small markup) and someone else's ONTs (which typically have a much  
greater markup).  In some cases even though that adhere to the standards  
to a point they diverge and go proprietary for things like integrating  
voice or video into the system.  That could cause management and/or  
support issues for you at some point in the life of the product.  
Personally I'd go with a vendor that offers the complete solution  
instead of piecing one together.


PON has some popularity in MDUs.  The splits are easy to manage because  
they're all in one location.  Bandwidth needs are typically on the low  
end in MDUs due to a lack of businesses (bandwidth being a severe  
future-proofing problem for PON).  PON's biggest limitations for us is  
the distance limitations.  We're deploying FTTH in the rural  
countryside, not in a dense residential neighborhood.  PON has very  
specific distance limitations for each split and cumulative across all  
splits that make rural deployments extremely difficult.  The price  
difference between Active and PON is negligible at this point and in  
many cases cheaper for active.  Go with active for FTTH.  You won't  
regret it.


All valid points. Deploying a strand to each customer from the CO/Cabinet
is a good way to future proof your plant.

However, there are some advantages to GPON - particularly if you're
deploying high bandwidth video services. PON ONTs share 2.4Gb/s of
bandwidth downstream, which means you can support more than a gig of video
on each PON, if deploying in dense mode.

Another big advantage is in CO equipment. A 4-PON blade in a cabinet is
going to support on the order of 256 ONTs.

--
Dan White

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Justin Shore]

Luke Marrott wrote:

I'm wondering what everyones thoughts are in regards to FTTH using Active
Ethernet or Passive. I work for a FTTH Provider that has done Active
Ethernet on a few networks so I'm always biased in discussions, but I don't
know anyone with experience in PON.


Active is the way to go.  Passive is merely a stepping stone on the way 
to active.  Passive only makes sense (in some cases) if you are 1) fiber 
poor and 2) not doing a greenfield deployment.  If you have the fiber to 
work with or if you are building a FTTH plant from scratch go with 
active.  The only real proponents of PONs are the RBOCs who are 
exceedingly cheap, slow to react, and completely unable to think ahead 
(ie, putting in an abundance of fiber for future use instead of just 
enough to get by) and some MSOs who don't dread and loathe shared 
network mediums like CATV and PON (whereas those from a networking 
background would never ever pick such a technology).



I've read before that almost all PON technology is proprietary, locking you
into a specific hardware vendor. However I think this is changing or has
already changed, opening PON up for interoperability. Can anyone confirm
this?


There are several actual PON standards out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network

Few vendors will ever admit that they interop with another vendor's gear 
though.  They don't want you to buy their optical switches (which have a 
small markup) and someone else's ONTs (which typically have a much 
greater markup).  In some cases even though that adhere to the standards 
to a point they diverge and go proprietary for things like integrating 
voice or video into the system.  That could cause management and/or 
support issues for you at some point in the life of the product. 
Personally I'd go with a vendor that offers the complete solution 
instead of piecing one together.


PON has some popularity in MDUs.  The splits are easy to manage because 
they're all in one location.  Bandwidth needs are typically on the low 
end in MDUs due to a lack of businesses (bandwidth being a severe 
future-proofing problem for PON).  PON's biggest limitations for us is 
the distance limitations.  We're deploying FTTH in the rural 
countryside, not in a dense residential neighborhood.  PON has very 
specific distance limitations for each split and cumulative across all 
splits that make rural deployments extremely difficult.  The price 
difference between Active and PON is negligible at this point and in 
many cases cheaper for active.  Go with active for FTTH.  You won't 
regret it.


Justin

Re: DNS query analyzer

[Tony Finch]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Joseph Jackson wrote:
>
> Anyone know of a tool that can take a pcap file from wireshark that was
> used to collect dns queries and then spit out statistics about the
> queries such as RTT and timeouts?

I don't know if it'll do exactly what you want, but have a look at
https://www.dns-oarc.net/tools/dnscap

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.

Re: DNS query analyzer

[Phil Regnauld]

Joseph Jackson (jjackson) writes:
> Hey List!
> 
> Anyone know of a tool that can take a pcap file from wireshark that was used 
> to collect dns queries and then spit out statistics about the queries such as 
> RTT and timeouts?

I don't know if DSC does this, but check it out:

http://dns.measurement-factory.com/tools/dsc/

Cheers,
Phil