[e2e] Re: packet-pair probe implementation

[Khaled A. Harfoush]

Just a follow up on the packet-pair probe implementation subject:
- We have been using variants of packet-pair probes to estimate the  
bottleneck "capacity" bandwidth along arbitrary path segments. For more  
details, please refer to our INFOCOM 2003 paper: "Measuring Bottleneck  
Bandwidth of Targeted Path Segments"  
- I am also aware of very nice work, that is currently a SIGCOMM  
submission, on estimating the end-to-end "available" bandwidth using  
packet-pairs. So, this work should be out soon.
- If you want to experiment with arbitrary probing structures, please  
feel free to use our PeriScope linux API which you can download it from:
http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/harfoush/
For more details, please refer to our PAM 2002 paper: "PeriScope: An  
Active Internet Probing and Measurement API"
Hope this helps,
--khaled

On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 03:05 PM,  
end2end-interest-request at postel.org wrote:

> Send end2end-interest mailing list submissions to
> 	end2end-interest at postel.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	end2end-interest-request at postel.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	end2end-interest-admin at postel.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of end2end-interest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: packet-pair probe implementation (Joseph Ishac)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:49:08 -0400
> From: Joseph Ishac <jishac at grc.nasa.gov>
> To: end2end-interest at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [e2e] packet-pair probe implementation
> Reply-To: Joseph Ishac <jishac at grc.nasa.gov>
>
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 05:15:33PM -0400, Constantine Dovrolis wrote:
>> However, strictly speaking, it has been shown before that packet
>> trains do not measure "available bandwidth", at least if the
>> latter is defined as "bandwidth not used by other traffic".
>
> Ah, yes I agree...
>
> I should have stated it as estimating the path or bottleneck capacity.
> "Available bandwidth" was definitely a poor choice.
>
> Thanks for the correction.
>
> -Joseph
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> end2end-interest mailing list
> end2end-interest at postel.org
> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
>
>
> End of end2end-interest Digest
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
---------------------------
Khaled Harfoush
Department of Computer Science
North Carolina State University
Phone: (919)513-7017
Fax: (919)515-7925
URL: www.cs.ncsu.edu/faculty/harfoush
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
---------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3043 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20030508/d4d76b3b/attachment.bin