From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-gx0-f171.google.com (mail-gx0-f171.google.com [209.85.161.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0531E200628 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gxk22 with SMTP id 22so979153gxk.16 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:23:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gkPDg6Cbxgs/0NLalW1TPTPjcrC10ImCsKeVD8BiFr0=; b=uR3gZBB3p6kZ+7gNchMHuVah8OPkXj5J41sXAUtazXCydthcG6YHkV5P5zfKzbhBcD Uq1Ekn14crbFUN4A+DbvtAJHdlTVB/zLoPe+tkTms6l75y8WlYl3OLdcKYk5DwN10cfE 9kP+7C2aAe5fPCKaLNiJCgoB5ujRnXgGXsNQY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.92.20 with SMTP id u20mr1018602ybl.421.1312399395822; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.141.17 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:23:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:23:15 -0600 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd34c78ca9d1704a99ecb51 Cc: Jacopo Cesareo , bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Testing wireless broadcast/multicast within cerowrt 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: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:36:20 -0000 --000e0cd34c78ca9d1704a99ecb51 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All those protocols are too 'ANT'-like - nearly at the level of statistical noise. Need a much bigger hammer than that to play with. That said, there's plenty of problems showing up in the noise... On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Dave Hart wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 15:39, Dave Taht wrote: > > > And suggestions on other multicast/broadcast tools generating data wort= h > > analyzing is highly desired. > > I don't know if they qualify as "worth analyzing", but how about > IPv6's substantial use of multicast, for ND, RA, and likely DHCP6? > Also, NTP broadcast/multicast and manycast (which uses multicast to > find servers, then unicast client/server for ongoing operation). > > Cheers, > Dave Hart > --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://the-edge.blogspot.com --000e0cd34c78ca9d1704a99ecb51 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All those protocols are too 'ANT'-like - nearly at the level of sta= tistical noise. Need a much bigger hammer than that to play with.

T= hat said, there's plenty of problems showing up in the noise...

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Dave Hart <davehart@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 15:39, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> And suggestions on other multicast/broadcast tools generating data wor= th
> analyzing is highly desired.

I don't know if they qualify as "worth analyzing", but = how about
IPv6's substantial use of multicast, for ND, RA, and likely DHCP6?
Also, NTP broadcast/multicast and manycast (which uses multicast to
find servers, then unicast client/server for ongoing operation).

Cheers,
Dave Hart



--
Dave T=E4ht
S= KYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
http://the-edge.blogspot.com
--000e0cd34c78ca9d1704a99ecb51--