| Time range | 2012-05-14 10:26 to 2012-05-16 07:51 UTC (1 day 21 hours) |
| Total traces | 473424 |
| Traces with responding destinations | 49029 (10.356%) |
| ASes with responding destinations | 3908 (24.191% out of 16155) |
| Prefixes with responding destinations | 17870 (20.933% out of 85366) |
Generated for cycle 1985 on 2012-05-18 14:30 UTC (3 days ago)
All images can be clicked on for more detailed information.
Median RTT per country and US state
Mapping RTT by political boundaries can reveal where high latency issues are located.
-
Median RTT per country and US state
Path Dispersion
The paths taken by different traces show where the majority of a monitor's traffic travels.
-
AS Path Dispersion (by AS Hop)
AS connectivity near monitor
-
AS Path Dispersion (by IP Hop)
AS connectivity near monitor (with IP hop distances preserved)
-
IP Path Dispersion (by IP Hop)
IP connectivity near monitor
Path Length Distributions
Path length distributions show, on aggregate, how well-connected a monitor is to the rest of the Internet.
-
CCDF of IP path lengths for responding destinations
IP path length percentiles percentile 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max IP path length 13 15 18 20 22 42 
-
CCDF of AS path lengths for responding destinations
AS path length percentiles percentile 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max AS path length 2 3 4 5 6 13 
RTT Distribution
An RTT distribution shows the general latency between a monitor and the rest of the Internet.
-
CCDF of destination RTTs
RTT percentiles percentile 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th RTT (ms) 115.857 229.379 355.248 444.839 600.010 
-
RTT quartiles vs hop distance
RTTs vs. Distance
Comparing RTT with geographical distance helps show if latency is primarily due to distance or other factors.
-
RTT density versus geographical distance
-
RTT quartiles versus geographical distance
