Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!qns3.qns.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!dragnhll.demon.co.uk
From: Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <bhk@dsl.co.uk>
Newsgroups: demon.ip.support,demon.tech.unix,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Batch FTP and Web Pages
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 96 11:19:49 GMT
Organization: Dragonhill Systems Ltd
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <837343189snz@dsl.co.uk>
References: <31D4AA3A.BC0@www.play-hookey.com> <4rr0us$fj@anorak.coverform.lan> <4rtrbh$2s8@avondale.demon.co.uk> <31E7146D.2FCE@www.play-hookey.com> <4s9n03$179@avondale.demon.co.uk>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: dragnhll.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
X-Mail2News-Path: dragnhll.demon.co.uk
In article <4s9n03$179@avondale.demon.co.uk>
jfhall@avondale.demon.co.uk "John F Hall" writes:
> In article <31E7146D.2FCE@www.play-hookey.com>,
> Ken Bigelow <kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com> wrote:
>
> >Just to check time lags, I did a reverse hop check to
> >demon-du.demon.co.uk, and came up with the following (at about 7:30 PM
> >EDT):
> >
> > 1. 206.161.179.129www.play-hookey.com (13 ms)
> > 2. 205.252.116.183asxxx.erols.com (159 ms)
> > 3. 205.252.116.164rtprime.erols.net (148 ms)
> > 4. 206.161.76.62 mae-east-h0/0.erols.net (178 ms)
> > 5. 192.41.177.245 mae-east.psi.net (171 ms)
> > 6. 38.1.3.1 ne.sc.psi.net (226 ms)
> > 7. 38.1.3.1 ne.sc.psi.net (244 ms)
> > 8. 204.6.105.2 <unknown> (418 ms)
> > 9. 194.159.252.98 ermin-router.router.demon.net (354 ms)
> >10. 158.152.1.222 demon-du.demon.co.uk (359 ms)
> >
> >I'm sure there are minor variations at different times of day and with
> >changes in demand, but this about says it. The problem of slow
> >connections is not within the US itself, and (according to a number of
> >posts in this excessively long and deep thread), not in the UK itself.
> >The bottleneck, as I and several others have said, is the bandwidth of
> >the <virtual> cable crossing the Atlantic. This being so, I'd like to
> >step back to the original topic of this thread...
>
> Eh? Those times don't show any queuing delays, they seem reasonable for
> the distances involved. You aren't forgetting that the Atlantic is
> *wide*, are you, and that packets will take time to cross? That's
> nothing to do with the rate at which packets can be transmitted.
Besides, one should NEVER place any confidence in the RTTs listed by the
traceroute program. Since it uses a type of ICMP packet which routers
are permitted to treat with a low priority, the delays introduced by busy
routers can manifest an adverse and unrealistic RTT which won't exist for
real UDP or TCP datagrams.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
Tony Blair's New Labour: The Windows'95 of Political Parties
(c/w Plug'n'Pray and a pretence of offering object-orientation)