[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wide-netman:00884] Re: Call for censensus on path forward
[ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
(B miss and therefore delete mis-posts. so fix subscription addresses! ]
(BWe are monitoring a small IPv6 network running on the Japan
(BGigabit Network and connecting 6 prefectures. The network is
(Bstill in its early stages so there is not so much application
(Btraffic. The major traffic is neighbour discovery and routing
(Btraffic. I monitor this network online using a passive probes.
(B As you know, IPv6 generates a periodic traffic for
(BNeighbors-Detection. My monitor polls a passive probe for
(Bthe count of these "Neighbour-Detection" packets.
(BI monitor these periodic waves for detecting the faults in
(Bthis IPv6 network.
(B In this work, large interval of polling is not good. The
(Bcorrect pattern of the Neighbour Discovery traffic can be
(Bidentified only with small polling intervals.
(BResearch Institute of Electrical Communication, Tohoku Univ.
(B----- Original Message -----
(BFrom: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <email@example.com>
(BTo: "Glenn Mansfield Keeni" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
(BSent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:00 PM
(BSubject: [wide-netman:00884] Re: Call for censensus on path forward
(B> I would really like to hear from a few operators (or
(B> even NM application developers) if they indeed find it
(B> a requirement to do polling a 1-second-granularty.
(B> It does not sound realistic to me... but who is me?