Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Mon, 02 March 2015 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C618C1A004C for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 20:05:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.661
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GN1-NKOCaI_9 for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 20:05:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F07A1A0037 for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 20:05:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id EC06AA1; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:05:18 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1425269118; bh=0nD988GwOIMLpx5q86To7OE2SkDNFVJveqngVnF2/Lo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FOgE66BpjJDtTGPvS2RZ9MEASnRn7MhqL3nacjHnVN6/z7oKOflYi26gc9Bs5EAVd QdjPyUSZy7miRlv3N31DoqeRTd7aHdHlpn9vANCsbkNQ69hiioM0A8Kv+VIeMjsHhw vX0QEG91ac/cTLxth3to9NHbgeEdPOkkpwptiz8A=
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F1B9F; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:05:18 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:05:18 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
To: Dave Taht <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, bloat <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 04:05:23 -0000

On Sun, 1 Mar 2015, Dave Taht wrote:

> but wow, it never occurred to me - in all these years - that ping was 
> the next core metric on simple tests. I can be really dumb.
> How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in
> sqm-scripts?

People will make all kinds of judgement calls based on things that are not 
very relevant.

Some people think a traceroute with few hops in it to be better than one 
with more hops in it. So a lot of providers use their MPLS networks and 
make the intermediate nodes not show up in traceroute.

I don't know how many times I have experienced people have used PING and 
opened trouble tickets when a core router had ICMP ping packet loss (even 
though all core router platforms have rate limiters for ICMP).

When you say that you de-prioritize ping, do you mean only ECHO REQUEST 
and ECHO REPLY, or do you mean all ICMP? Perhaps a solution would be to 
assure 5% of the link bandwidth for ICMP?

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: