Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-fan-opsawg-packet-loss-01.txt

2013-08-06 Thread Anoop Ghanwani
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Fan, Peng fanp...@chinamobile.com wrote: A basic requirement for using ICMP (and other active measurement approaches) is to let probing traffic and service traffic have the same drop probability, though it is usually difficult to guarantee this. It seems like

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-fan-opsawg-packet-loss-01.txt

2013-08-06 Thread Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Hello, Fan, Ramki, Just because there is a hammer, it does not mean that every problem is a nail. Someone mentioned this on the presentation at Berlin. Fan, It really is all about scope and goals. You mention that ICMP is not appropriate, and then that it is appropriate. I suspect the real

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-fan-opsawg-packet-loss-01.txt

2013-08-06 Thread Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
There are two other considerations: 1. ICMP packets might follow a different path than the application in the presence of ECMP 2. The ICMP responder might rate limit and drop if it's a router regardless of the drop characteristics of the path -- RFC 6192. Thanks, Thumb typed by Carlos