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
> 
> 
> 
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.