From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from elenski.switch.ch (elenski.switch.ch [IPv6:2001:620:0:14::9c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0086921F1F4 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 06:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from surlej.switch.ch (surlej.switch.ch [IPv6:2001:620:0:e::69]) by elenski.switch.ch (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id r0HE8ueI015240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:08:57 +0100 Received: from user-23-22.vpn.switch.ch ([130.59.23.22] helo=Simons-MacBook-Air-33230.local) by surlej.switch.ch with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tvq9H-0007SW-T9; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:08:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20728.1526.325324.190795@Simons-MacBook-Air-33230.local> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:08:54 +0100 From: Simon Leinen To: mallman@icir.org In-Reply-To: References: <20130109033920.C47B95B2B40@lawyers.icir.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.2.92.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.2) X-Spam-Score: undef - relay 2001:620:0:e::69 marked with skip_spam_scan X-CanIt-Geo: ip=2001:620:0:e::69; country=CH X-CanItPRO-Stream: switch-ch:outbound (inherits from switch-ch:default, base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) Cc: Shawn Ostermann , Toke =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= , bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: [Bloat] Passive RTT measurements [was: Re: Bufferbloat Paper] X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:09:20 -0000 Simon Leinen writes: > [...] But you probably have reasons why you haven't extended Bro > rather than using tcptrace (possibly after improving it somehow). Sorry, gibberish - I meant "...reasons for extending Bro rather than using tcptrace". > Care to elaborate? > Maybe we can add the necessary improvements to tcptrace and make it even > more awesome. (I'm sure Bro is awesome too, I'm just not as familiar > with it.) [...] -- Simon.