[nos-bbs] Interested in REPEAT packet statistics?

[ve1fyi]

you know you are all starting to sound like
spoiled kids...let it go
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George [ham] VerDuin" <k8rra at ameritech.net>
To: <kd8ipn at coehome.com>; "TAPR xNOS Mailing List" <nos-bbs at tapr.org>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [nos-bbs] Interested in REPEAT packet statistics?


>I accept that Kenneth.
>
> On 04/16/2010 01:21 AM, Kenneth C Coe Jr wrote:
>>  From a previous email: You have repeatedly represented yourself as a 
>> network professional
> I was un-aware you read my material in that manner:
> I am an EE by education.
> The State of Mi has bestowed a PE licence so I can practice my trade.
> My client base has been utilities and large business; the focus: power 
> delivery and system protection.
> I'm published, and had the emotional high of others standing on my 
> shoulders to advance my work while I stand on the shoulders of others.
> My second career required me to admin unix and design automation machinery 
> while delivering automotive components.
> I've even had fun implementing Grand Haven Musical Fountain [google it if 
> you care].
>
> So I'm not a network pro -- just someone with IT for 44 years of building, 
> using, selling, software and doing OS stuff.
> The software I designed to support my needs to provide client solutions 
> produced asymmetrical analysis using symmetrical power system models, 
> transient analysis on EHV DC transmission lines, pulling wires thru 
> nuclear power plant construction zones, and machine actions from 
> multi-computer control systems.
> Networking is just something I do in support of the tools I create and 
> use -- not my principal focus.
> Therefore, while I've read the RFCs necessary to do the job at hand, I 
> have no library of them.
>
> I'll wade thru your use of network-specific details that you presume I 
> understand, using research tools at my disposal, but let's establish 
> English is my first language of choice, not the monikers of network 
> minutia.
>
>>
>> Of course there are re-transmits. there is not a network in the world
>> that doesn't have them. It is written into the standards because it
>> cannot be eliminated. The question is never if there are re-transmits,
>> but whether there is an unreasonable number of them given the status of
>> the network.
> If we are past chest thumping, here is proof you understand the point of 
> my focus.
>   "unreasonable"
> It is my contention that the stats I presented demonstrate unreasonable 
> repeats under VC configuration at K8RRA.
> No more.
> No less.
> With detail to demonstrate network status.
> Just one number that raises the red flag -- the idiot light -- saying 
> "Look deeper".
>
>> There is no answer to the re-transmits in your data, and
>> you make no attempt whatsoever to provide a baseline of what is going on
>> at the time of your tests.
>>
> Actually the baseline is shown by the same stats under datagram 
> configuration.
> It demonstrates a reasonable success.
>
> What I presented has not been seen before -- perhaps never again.
> What I asked doesn't depend on performance of my node, it depends on years 
> of experience.
> The answer to my query centers on what you call unreasonable.
>
> It certainly appears you don't understand the arithmetic I did for K8RRA 
> node.
> OK, I'll detail any number you choose to ask about.
> Just don't jump to explaining why my radio is failing -- it isn't.
>
>>
>>> SO -- On the *single* issue of "Does a problem exist"
>>>
>> Maybe, maybe not...
>>
> I accept that assessment.
> I don't accept that you have an analysis to present.
> And I don't accept your expectation that I presented adequate data for you 
> to analyse.
>
>>
>>> Not how big is it
>>> Not where is it
>>> Not what caused it
>>> Especially not what to do about it.
>>> What do you say?
>>>
>> If you go to a mechanic and say "my car is slow" he might ask if you
>> have tried hitting the gas. The numbers you gave us can say nothing, and
>> indicate nothing. there is no answer there, positive or negative.
>>
> Good point.
> Did you ask that clarifying question about the gas?
> If you did -- I quite frankly miss it.
> Or, did you jump directly to stupid?
> HHMMM
>
>>
>> Move on only after you have completed this first step, but I sense that
>> you may doing some work at this level. In the mean time, provide a link
>> to download the dump, and we'll try to take a look for you.
>>
> I have a spot to post the dump, I'm not convinced it is necessary yet.
>
> You see I started this quest months ago after being ejected from a 
> CONVerse session.
> I found 32 repeat packets stacked up in a queue that prevented me from 
> responding in a timely manner.
> Simply 32 saturated my link to the outside world.
> Not many packets in a global view of all packets.
> Not perhaps statistically significant.
> I'd happily give you more detail of this incident, but detail is probably 
> not needed either.
>
> At this moment, I'm only interested in the idiot light -- an idiom taken 
> from earlier posts.
> I'm interested in "unreasonable" -- and only in the context of a normally 
> operating network.
> I'm really NOT interested in having you determine the fix for what ails my 
> node at this moment.
> Perhaps we might reach that some day later, not today.
>
> SO -- if you care to read my stats in detail, ask away.
> Let's start at the top and drill down.
> Lets start by deciding 29.5% is unreasonable [or not(?)] when 4.5% is the 
> norm [see the original stats].
>
> Yes on my terms -- I'm not asking you to doctor my system.
> I'm asking for a consult on unreasonable.
> And don't presume I already presented what you need to know in order to 
> answer.
>
>> Ken
>>
> Skip
>
> _______________________________________________
> nos-bbs mailing list
> nos-bbs at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs