Sush,
Are you thinking of rate-limiting or traffic shaping ?
I'd expect rate-limiting of bursty traffic to lose some packets
irrespective of the L3 hardware/CPU capacity
--
Rafi
## On 2002-07-15 23:57 -0400 Sush Bhattarai typed:
SB
SB Might want to query your provider as to where
: A cisco ping is not bursty, to the extent of hundreds of mb/s. Also, cisco
: ping doesn't offer 4,000 pings/sec.
No, but you can start 6 simultaneous sessions to the router and have 5 of
them pinging the other side of the circuit while looking at the 6th
session to watch for traffic
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Pedro R Marques wrote:
From a point of view of routing software the major challenge of
handling a 256k prefix list is not actually applying it to the
received prefixes. The most popular BGP implementations all, to my
knowledge, have prefix filtering algorithms that
At 11:13 AM 7/15/2002 -0400, Art Houle wrote:
We are using QOS to preferentially drop packets that represent
file-sharing (kazaa, gnutella, etc). This saves us 40Mbps of traffic
across our multiple congested WAN links. The trick is to mark packets
meaningfully. Also, the WFQ introduces some
Vadim Antonov wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Pedro R Marques wrote:
From a point of view of routing software the major challenge of
handling a 256k prefix list is not actually applying it to the
received prefixes. The most popular BGP implementations all, to my
knowledge, have prefix
In other words..intermittent intergap delay?
At 01:33 AM 7/16/2002 -0400, Vincent J. Bono wrote:
Since this is being done with the 15454s this is not true rate limiting,
more its a matter of STS channels being made available for use on the Vlan
assigned to the two GigE ports.
We have
I may be missing something but..
presumably their rate-limiting involves some form of queuing/buffering..
in which case assuming the ping is the only thing occuring, when the rate hits
the limit it will queue, delay and slow down the echo/reply
and no packets should be lost?
on the other
I would still contend that the number 1 issue is how you do express
the policy to the routing code. One could potentially attempt to
recognise the primary key is a route-map/policy-statement and compile
it as you suggest. It is an idea that ends up being tossed up in the
air frequently,
Hello,
I've pretty much always assumed that what a switch
reported as a status regarding the link of a node was the
actual status of the line to be the case. However, when I
I think that there is no such thing as the actual status of the line.
Each end of the cable has a status, either
Is this link in production? We are using a gigabit ethernet to our
provider. We are limited on our traffic going to Commodity traffic, but
have free reign on our Internet 2 traffic. We found that we get the best
results when we shape/police our traffic to stay within our contractual
anyone know what is going on over at uu?
seeing problems all over...
3 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 216.79.187.254
4 10 ms10 ms 10 ms 172.25.57.5
5 10 ms10 ms 10 ms 205.152.37.184
6 10 ms10 ms10 ms 500.POS2-0.GW11.ATL5.ALTER.NET
[157.130.76.97]
710
BH anyone know what is going on over at uu?
BH
BH seeing problems all over...
BH
BH3 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 216.79.187.254
BH4 10 ms10 ms 10 ms 172.25.57.5
BH5 10 ms10 ms 10 ms 205.152.37.184
BH6 10 ms10 ms10 ms 500.POS2-0.GW11.ATL5.ALTER.NET
BH
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:02:22 -0700
Alan Sato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im having the same problem. I was told Verio was not accepting connections
from UUnet.
C:\tracert www.webshots.com
Tracing route to www.webshots.com [128.242.104.137]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
From me to focaldata
Actually its that Verio wont accept networks longer than /21. I have a /22 there.
Thats from Dorian according to this http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.html#PeerFilter
That connection is not down.
Alan
-Original Message-
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
14 matches
Mail list logo
