Re: Smokeping - EchoPingHttps

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

Noted. I transitioned over to the curl plugin and sites that didn't work now do. Some sites had a lower time, while 
some had a higher. 


The value of the time isn't so important to me as what it does over time. 




Thanks. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "John Adams" <jna () retina net> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
Cc: "nanog () nanog org list" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 8:21:36 PM 
Subject: Re: Smokeping - EchoPingHttps 


I sort of feel like echopinghttps is a near 20-year old tool with little to no bearing on the reality of where TLS is 
today. 


The owner of this tool has discontinued it ( see https://github.com/bortzmeyer/echoping ) and it is no longer 
maintained. I wouldn't rely on it anymore. 


-john 




On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:26 PM Mike Hammett < nanog () ics-il net > wrote: 




I used EchoPingHttps for the first time today. 


I pulled up the top 20 sites (well, removing duplicate sites from the same company) from Alexa and put them in to trend 
response times. I've had "this feels slow" over the years, but no way to really track that other than feels and pings. 


I noticed that a few (Facebook, Salesforce, ESPN, and Zillow) don't chart at all, with varying errors in a smokeping 
--debug. I've noticed that a couple more (Amazon and Etsy) are fickle in their responses. I assume if they're not 
responding, they're poo pooing on my fake client. Am I in the right ballpark? 




Next, is there a better way of doing this? I saw the curl plugin, but it was only after I had seen EchoPingHttps, so 
maybe curl is "better." 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com