nanog mailing list archives
Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:31:06 -0800
For what it's worth, a highly scientific measurement from my house in Berkeley, the authoritative location for all quantitative evaluation of the Internet, using secret proprietary round-trip latency-measurement tools... a.nic.de, 100 packets, 7% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 163.454/199.368/494.708 ms c.de.net, 100 packets, 2% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 15.071/46.131/724.957 ms z.nic.de, 100 packets, 3% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 180.9/222.723/578.468 ms s.de.net, 100 packets, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 184.26/219.786/501.547 ms l.de.net, 100 packets, 1% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 170.435/211.573/568.7 ms f.nic.de, 100 packets, 5% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 171.717/206.826/489.947 ms Overall for DENIC: 3% loss and 15ms / 166ms / 725ms min/avg/max latency. c.de.net is the one I'd be using, and it gives 2% loss and 46ms latency.
c.de.net is the one you WISH your resolver would use. sometimes it might, others it might not. randy
Current thread:
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure John Levine (Mar 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Alexander Koch (Mar 31)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Bill Woodcock (Apr 01)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Randy Bush (Apr 01)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Elmar K. Bins (Apr 02)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Daniel Roesen (Apr 02)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Bill Woodcock (Apr 01)