maybe wireless, but I'd also look at what's on the RFC1918 address. Would also look at the return route. And layer 2 between hop 8 & 9 might be running through a cheap switch or something. jamie On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 19:38 +1200, bryan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14 2006 richard(a)helix.net.nz wrote:
bryan wrote:
Given the packet loss and latency at that hop, wireless seems a likely candidate.
Oh dear lord, ok I *was* going to leave this post alone, but sorry, I took the bait.
Uh oh. it looks like I'm just about to take a hammering. :-(
I'm dumbfounded as to who made the executive decision that wireless == lag ?
/me blames Woooooooooosh
Uh yeah, actually yes, my experience (however limited) has been that wireless connections are laggy.
I am open to suggestions otherwise.
Newsflash: not all wireless technologies are "laggy" and in fact a lot are really damn good, latency wise.
"Newsflash"? I accept that I have been, and can be wrong, but way to make me feel tiny.
Congestion/rate limiting, who knows.
(I shall now leave this thread alone so as not to inflict the wrath of t3h_d0n4ld)
Crafting a reply direct would have avoided wrath altogether, and saved me from the ridicule (however warranted).
Thanks for your heads up though, I will now take some time to look at other wireless tech before sticking my hand up again.
Back to lurking,
--
Jamie Baddeley