From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 8D63A21F258; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 20:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id EC06AA1; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:05:18 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1425269118; bh=0nD988GwOIMLpx5q86To7OE2SkDNFVJveqngVnF2/Lo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FOgE66BpjJDtTGPvS2RZ9MEASnRn7MhqL3nacjHnVN6/z7oKOflYi26gc9Bs5EAVd QdjPyUSZy7miRlv3N31DoqeRTd7aHdHlpn9vANCsbkNQ69hiioM0A8Kv+VIeMjsHhw vX0QEG91ac/cTLxth3to9NHbgeEdPOkkpwptiz8A= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F1B9F; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:05:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:05:18 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 04:05:51 -0000 On Sun, 1 Mar 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > but wow, it never occurred to me - in all these years - that ping was > the next core metric on simple tests. I can be really dumb. > > How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in > sqm-scripts? People will make all kinds of judgement calls based on things that are not very relevant. Some people think a traceroute with few hops in it to be better than one with more hops in it. So a lot of providers use their MPLS networks and make the intermediate nodes not show up in traceroute. I don't know how many times I have experienced people have used PING and opened trouble tickets when a core router had ICMP ping packet loss (even though all core router platforms have rate limiters for ICMP). When you say that you de-prioritize ping, do you mean only ECHO REQUEST and ECHO REPLY, or do you mean all ICMP? Perhaps a solution would be to assure 5% of the link bandwidth for ICMP? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se