 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Am I misreading the big jump in time between 11 and 12 as transatlantic traffic? LND2 does sort of evoke "London" the same way that DCA evokes "Washington DC" (Tyson's Corners??) (...) Yes and yes. (...) I have no idea what it proves about (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) No, that is the transatlantic jump from London to DC. Tyson's Corners is further down, the naming convention is [port].[routertype].....Alter.Net TCO=Tyson's Corners, Va. (...) Ooof, well, out of sheer curiousity, I did the following 6 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) Hate to follow myself up continually, but I thought I'd show you what I meant with a snapshot from your original trace to bricksmiths.com from your client location: 10 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms so-7-0-0.XR2.LND2.alter.net [158.43.233.246] 11 10 ms 10 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) OK, well I am confused now. I thought that since tracert can't really ask all the routers on the routing to report interroutter times, that what it displays is the time from where the trace is run to that particular router, one router after (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) No, you're right. I don't understand how you're confused. If it was my original assertion that it might have been the UUNet network that was causing the suck, well... You got how traceroute works completely right. But something to keep in mind (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | (...) why do you need traces from lugnet to wherever? the jump.cgi doesn't get the data for you, it just redirects you to your desination... so the connection speed between lugnet and your target is immaterial. btw, if you want to try another host, (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) I was under the (incorrect?) assumption that the lugnet server performed the lookup for the new domain as part of the jump.cgi process. If it is, in fact, your machine doing the lookup, then no, Lugnet traces wouldn't be needed, natch. eric (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | (...) D'oh, what the heck am I talking about. No, you're right, Lugnet searches aren't necessary at all, either way. It's been a long time since I've done any DNS stuff, just ignore me on that point. eric (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) It doesn't, no. --Todd (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) Here's something else I noticed: Bricksmiths.com doesn't reverse resolve. I fed the Looking Glass the IP address for both sites, and it automagickally knew that 209.68.63.236 was lugnet.com, but it didn't know that 63.217.235.34 was (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
