[c-nsp] Internet speed

[James Bensley]

On 14 August 2018 at 10:15, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>
>
> On 14/Aug/18 11:01, James Bensley wrote:
>
> I am interesting in writing an open source RFC2544 and Y.1564
> compliant tester, I just recently changed jobs and my new company has
> hardware testers for RFC2544, Y.1564, RFC6349 and OAM. I think that
> XDP is the way forward in the Linux Kernel and now I have access to
> hardware testers I can valid the software results against the hardware
> testers.
>
>
> While 2544 tests should do fine to prove a link's worth, I believe the more
> "idealic" test should be 6349.
>
> Most complaints from users are due to a lack of understanding about how TCP
> works, particularly in LFN scenarios. 6349 focuses on TCP tests,
> particularly on the effects of LFN situations, and the realization that in
> some cases, window size scaling + parallel TCP sessions is the best way to
> prove a link.

Depends what are you testing, physical link/node performance or user QoE.

There are cases for both and I agree that both problems require a
different hammer.

Cheers,
James.