RE: Call for censensus on path forward
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.eos |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <A451D5E6F15FD211BABC0008C7FAD7BC0EF25A5C@nl0006exch003u.nl.lucent.com> |
I would really like to hear from a few operators (or even NM application developers) if they indeed find it a requirement to do polling a 1-second-granularty. It does not sound realistic to me... but who is me? Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: zaterdag 21 september 2002 13:19 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Call for censensus on path forward > .. snip .. > But then why do we need to look at traffic at 1 second intervals? > If we are managing a reasonably fast network, and doing serious > management - then we probably need to look at traffic at even > smaller intervals. I will cite just two of the instances that we > have actually encountered. > a. Traffic graphs for a Gigabit network polled at, say, 1 minute > intervals are USELESS. What we end up seeing is the traffic > averaged over a minute! One never sees that real traffic > characteristics from these graphs. [Isn't there anyone out there > monitoring a high speed network ? I would be interested to know > how you do it.] > b. Our security applications need high resolution traffic monitoring. > There can be a sustained stealth DoS attack that is disrupting the > network and seriously degrading its performance (with short and > sharp bursts traffic) yet not a flicker shows on the > traffic graphs > to tell about the attack i.e. if you are monitoring at 5 minutes, > 1 minute or even several second intervals! > > I would love to hear your comments. > > Glenn > > > >