From: Richard Dumoulin (richard.dumoulin@vanco.es)
Date: Mon Apr 12 2004 - 15:50:17 GMT-3
Hehe, nice to know that I contributed with my basic question.
I am also thinking about the reason why so many people are preparing for the
cert. I can think of getting a job, getting a better job (more money),
gaining respect etc ...
But the preparation is interesting in itself because we never stop learning.
Like in chess there are always more things to know ...
--Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Serran [mailto:groupstudy@swiftdsl.com.au]
Sent: lunes, 12 de abril de 2004 20:39
To: Richard Dumoulin; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Frame relay
yep.. i posted that question up here about double de bits marked when
pinging the local fr intf about a month ago but got no reply.. i think i can
close that case now :)
stressed over it for so long about something so simplistic in logic!
cheers
Serran
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Dumoulin [mailto:richard.dumoulin@vanco.es]
Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2004 4:32 AM
To: Serran; SANCHEZ-MONGE,ANTONIO (HP-France,ex2); ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Frame relay
So when pinging the local interface the echo request leaves the local intf
then comes back right ? Then the echo reply leaves the local int again and
comes back ? Ok I think I get it ;)
Thanks
--Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Serran [mailto:groupstudy@swiftdsl.com.au
<mailto:groupstudy@swiftdsl.com.au> ]
Sent: lunes, 12 de abril de 2004 19:50
To: SANCHEZ-MONGE,ANTONIO (HP-France,ex2); ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Frame relay
ahhh so that explains why for example, when you mark the de bit on a packet
size (less than standard echo and echo reply), you get double the de bits
marked when pinging your own interface.. ie. 5 ping packets give you 10 de
bits marked.
argh! such simple logic, I think I was thinking to much into it at the time.
thanks
Serran
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com
<mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> ]On Behalf Of SANCHEZ-MONGE,ANTONIO
(HP-France,ex2)
Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2004 2:23 AM
To: 'Richard Dumoulin'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Frame relay
That applies for both echo and echo reply packets, so for each echo and
reply you have 4 times the delay of the FR circuit, while when you ping the
other end the total delay is 2 times the FR circuit delay.
-----Original Message-----
From: SANCHEZ-MONGE,ANTONIO (HP-France,ex2)
[mailto:antonio.sanchez-monge@hp.com <mailto:antonio.sanchez-monge@hp.com> ]
Sent: lunes, 12 de abril de 2004 18:20
To: 'Richard Dumoulin'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Frame relay
Hi Richard,
The packet is going to the other router and then back.
In the traceroute you can see it.
Cheers,
Ato.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Dumoulin [mailto:richard.dumoulin@vanco.es
<mailto:richard.dumoulin@vanco.es> ]
Sent: lunes, 12 de abril de 2004 17:32
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Frame relay
I still don't know after some years in the field now why when pinging the
local frame relay interface the packet delays are twice longer than when
pinging the remote router. Is there any reason for this ?
Rack1R3#sh run int se 0/0
Building configuration...
Current configuration:
!
interface Serial0/0
ip address 163.1.35.3 255.255.255.0
no ip directed-broadcast
encapsulation frame-relay
no ip mroute-cache
no fair-queue
clockrate 64000
frame-relay map ip 163.1.35.3 305
frame-relay map ip 163.1.35.5 305 broadcast
no frame-relay inverse-arp
end
Rack1R3#ping 163.1.35.5
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 163.1.35.5, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 144/144/145 ms
Rack1R3#ping 163.1.35.3
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 163.1.35.3, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 284/285/288 ms
Rack1R3#trace 163.1.35.5
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 163.1.35.5
1 163.1.35.5 80 msec * 76 msec
Rack1R3#trace 163.1.35.3
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 163.1.35.3
1 163.1.35.5 76 msec 81 msec 128 msec
2 163.1.35.3 156 msec * 156 msec
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:46 GMT-3