| To: | Liang Han <lhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Linux2.2.12 and 2.0.36 TCP differences? |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 2 May 2000 15:46:03 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005012005210.12714-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from lhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, May 01, 2000 at 08:18:14PM -0400 |
| References: | <20000429012414.A2137@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005012005210.12714-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 08:18:14PM -0400, Liang Han wrote:
> Telnet and Ftp sessiones go through the new route now. But I also need to
> send another redirect message with Tos set to 0x0 to make Tracetoute
> work.
> My conclusion is under the scheme of per TOS routing, we can not totally
> rely on traceroute, ping, route and ping programms to determine the
> actual route.
At least traceroute has a -t option:
[...]
-t Set the type-of-service in probe packets to the
following value (default zero). The value must be
a decimal integer in the range 0 to 255. This
option can be used to see if different types-of-
service result in different paths. (If you are not
running 4.4bsd, this may be academic since the nor
mal network services like telnet and ftp don't let
you control the TOS). Not all values of TOS are
legal or meaningful - see the IP spec for defini
tions. Useful values are probably `-t 16' (low
delay) and `-t 8' (high throughput).
[...]
Ralf
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Linux2.2.12 and 2.0.36 TCP differences?, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: PATCH 2.2.14 net/core/dev.c, Ben Greear |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Linux2.2.12 and 2.0.36 TCP differences?, kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | IPv6 source address selection, Stig Venaas |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |