## On 2004-01-13 14:35 -0500 Richard A Steenbergen typed:
RAS
RAS
RAS As far as pricing for these things goes, let us take an example here...
RAS The Juniper routing engine is actually a 6U blade server on it's side:
RAS
RAS
yes, we tried those in beta. literally went up in flames, yes real
flames. one of the more exciting routers made from washing machine
parts i have ever seen.
We also used them but the number of issues in keeping the
cards routeing tables in sync just made them too unreliable.
As I remember, it used commercial gated.
- Original Message -
From: Nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Vadim Antonov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
On 15-Jan-04 Unnamed
As I remember, it used commercial gated.
It used a heavily modifed public that IEng worked on. The guys
at IEng were fantastic and did a huge amount of fixing and feature
adding of features. I think Cisco bought IEng.
Regards,
Neil.
It used a heavily modifed public that IEng worked on. The guys
at IEng were fantastic and did a huge amount of fixing and feature
adding of features. I think Cisco bought IEng.
Indeed they did, and they were purchased by Cisco.
-John
Deepak Jain wrote:
With a network boot OS for each POP, you can do
version control much much more easily.
This is seriously flawed, IMHO. I'd encourage my competitors to do it:
after the master image gets corrupted all it takes is a bozo tripping
the right circuit breaker and the entire POP
There is one more interesting problem.
Let's, say, you install PC with ZEBRA and have all 120,000 prefixes.
Internet is _internet_, sometimes people make a crazy things,
and create a bad (misconfigured, or very long, or very unusual) announces.
Some announces are fatal for Cisco IOS, some for
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:16:22 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You may find it interesting that both Linux and FreeBSD now
have interrupt coalescing, and www.hipac.org is building a
compiled ruleset.
grep usec_delay /sys/most/any/nic/driver/*.c
Eddy
--
Brotsman Dreger, Inc. -
Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Purchase SuperMicro U1 server, with 2 9 Gb SCSI
disks (hot swappable).
Suddenly that cheap router ain't cheap anymore.
Now, say, announce A crash Cisco IOS. 99.9% Internet backbones
are Ciscos, so this announce breaks few Ciscos around and die
- so you never know
This year is the 10 year aniversary of Demon using NetBSD/GateD to
talk BGP4 to Sprint, Pipex, JANET and GBNet on Sparc IPX and i486/DX2/66
boxes, 20,000 routes at the time as I recall. [10,000 new routes a year ?]
PC's as routers is a good way to save a few pounds [dollars!] only
if you don't
It is not a joke - we had such scenario few years ago (it was 'gated vs
Cisco and WellFreet vs Cisco'). And such scenario make Juniper back-bone a
little dangerous (but I believe that JUNIPER debugged such problems long
ago, so it is not a case today).
Yes this has happened a few times, also
This also is flawed, IMHO. What if you want to do queing or QOS based on
BGP?
That doesn't make any sense.
You could only do the signalling for such a requirement in BGP and
that isn't too hard to implement but the actual work to do
QoS/queuing are in the kernel/OS/architecture irrespective
If someone were to take *half* the software innovations which have been
made over the past 15 years (a decent fib, interrupt coalescing, compiled
packet matching rulesets, etc) and applied them as if they knew something
about networking and coding, they could very easily produce a box using
off
he also said something on the order of let's not bother to discuss using home
appliances to build a global network.
Hmm actually I'm not so sure, the trend has been the opposite .. lots of PCs
instead of mainframes and dumb terminals and the Internet itself has been about
spreading out the
--- Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you have vendor C or vendor J, and all vendor C
or J routers crap out
at the same time, you're safe. Yes, you were down
but so was half of the
rest of the world, so it's obviously not your fault
but vendor C or J's
fault.
Michel.
But this
He also said that Internet is growing by 1000% a year.
we're adding a DS3 per day [to the network]
and, at the time, both statements were true.
randy
-
From: Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
he also said something on the order of let's not bother to discuss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't say that I did it, but having a server with a backup OS image
in case your flash-drive fails isn't the worst thing in the world.
Especially for a remotely-adminstered POP.
Possibly I misunderstood your words: There's no problem having
backup image from
traffic doubled and tripled in a year, it didn't go 10x.
actually, at the time, mo said doubled every nine months. and
it did.
randy
: It seemed that zebra was not following the RFC for OSPF.
This would be one advantage to Quagga over Zebra. It is my understanding
there have been many changes in Quagga to OSPF to make it
standards compliant.
James Edwards
Routing and Security
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the Santa Fe Office:
I can project a nearly infinite rate of growth in my personal income when
I deposit a $3.95 rebate check. It's a matter of defining the sampling
period.
The truth is, that kind of creative statistics is exactly what allowed
Worldcom (and the rest of the telecom) to get into the deep pile of
Frank Louwers writes:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:12:13PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Filtering on a /20 or whatever (up to /24) is a bad thing because
RIPE (and maybe APNIC) actually gives out /24 PI space, that comes
out of RIPE's /8's, not your upstream's /20 or /16 or /whatever...
On 15-Jan-04 Unnamed Administration sources reported Vadim Antonov said :
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Getting to 1mpps on a single router today will probably be hard. However,
I've been considering implementing a clustered router architecture,
should scale pps more or
Yep, that describes the old GRF400/800 to a T. It was gated.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Nicole wrote:
I used to work with an Ascend GRF (goes real fast) Router that was nothing
more than a hacked BSD os running on a hard drive at first then they
moved to a flash card that controlled some custom
I used to work with an Ascend GRF (goes real fast) Router that was
nothing more than a hacked BSD os running on a hard drive at first then
they moved to a flash card that controlled some custom switching
hardware.
yes, we tried those in beta. literally went up in flames, yes real
flames.
Why vendors feel the need to design route
processors which are barely upgradable in RAM, not upgradable in
processing power, and at best 24-36 months behind the times of the
technology the Dell Interns are pushing for $499, is beyond me.
It's called profit margins.
The thing that surprises me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing that surprises me is that there aren't any small
vendors offering fairly generic routing boxes, i.e. Intel-based
motherboard, lots of RAM, BSD/Linux base OS with Zebra for
routing and some of the many PCI cards supporting T1 and
DS3 circuits (not to forget
michael,
imagestream does this, afaik. not too familiar with their offerings though.
paul
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: /24s run amuck
Why vendors feel the need to design route
processors
The thing that surprises me is that there aren't any small
vendors offering fairly generic routing boxes, i.e. Intel-based
imagestream does this, afaik. not too familiar with their offerings
though.
I stand corrected. The following page comparing Cisco and Imagestream
is quite interesting.
Sprint and a few others used to filter on /19s, 'cause that's what
ARIN others handed out. They changed that to /20s when the rules
changed. Sprint gave that up.
The filtering was done on the /18 because that was what I expected we
could easily afford to support in terms of memory and
I intend to give them a serious look: they sound like
they could make good CPE for about 75% of my
customers...
(and of course, ssh v2 is a big plus :)
-David Barak
-Fully RFC 1925 Compliant-
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.imagestream.com/Cisco_Comparison.html
How many of you
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
om, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The thing that surprises me is that there aren't any small
vendors offering fairly generic routing boxes, i.e. Intel-based
imagestream does this, afaik. not too familiar with their offerings
though.
I stand corrected. The following
This was always a bad practice.
One of the major networks to do this is Gone. Another had rewritten their
policy to say something along the lines of should advertise X amount of
address space in aggregate or the equivalent. I don't think anyone still
measures by prefixes alone. It was always the
Sadly, the type of person that public shame would work on, is the type of
person that is already taking care of the problem, or will be soon.
There is one mechanism for helping to solve this. Is there an RFC,
informational or otherwise that clearly specifies that BGP announcements to
peers and
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stand corrected. The following page comparing Cisco and Imagestream
is quite interesting.
http://www.imagestream.com/Cisco_Comparison.html
How many of you would buy an Imagestream box to evaluate for
your next network buildout?
I've been
At 03:36 PM 1/14/2004, Daniel Golding wrote:
Sadly, the type of person that public shame would work on, is the type of
person that is already taking care of the problem, or will be soon.
There is one mechanism for helping to solve this. Is there an RFC,
informational or otherwise that clearly
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.imagestream.com/Cisco_Comparison.html
How many of you would buy an Imagestream box to evaluate for
your next network buildout?
For a relatively simple end-user BGP customer, it works fine. And the
nice thing is it's PC-type
] fx317.263.8831
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: /24s run amuck
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stand corrected
: o) This may be fixed but I found it slow to update the kernel routing table
: which isnt designed to take 12 routes being added at once
:
: Icky, could perhaps cause issues if theres a major reconvergence due to an
: adjacent backbone router failing etc, might be okay tho
This is the
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Have been discussing PCs for a bit but as yet not deployed one, as I
understand it a *nix based PC running Zebra will work pretty fine but
has the constraints that:
o) It has no features - not a problem for a lot of purposes
Which no features?
On 14 Jan 2004, at 17:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Have been discussing PCs for a bit but as yet not deployed one, as I
understand it a *nix based PC running Zebra will work pretty fine but
has the constraints that:
o) It has no features - not a
: Which no features? I haven't played with zebra yet, but my
: understanding is that it supports a large subset of the IOS BGP config
: language including application of route-maps to incoming/outgoing routes,
: and therefore things like prepending, setting metrics or preference, etc.
: Am
: Be real carfull with Zebra, I got stung big time !!!
What I run is actually Quagga, despite saying Zebra.
Would you share your experiences ?
James Edwards
Routing and Security
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa
Store hours: 9-6 Monday through Friday
505-988-9200
almost all times I hear people saying there is problem with Zebra or Quagga,
more than half of all times it is problem with their OS, not the daemon.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 05:00:06PM -0700, james wrote:
: Be real carfull with Zebra, I got stung big time !!!
What I run is actually
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: james [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Danny Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
almost all times I hear people saying there is problem with Zebra
... and we care because? the router is a black box. if the output is not
what is expected, it matters not why. though understandable, it is still not
acceptable. /imho
and you blame zebra ?
if an equipment / vendor you have on your network is not acceptable, do what is
acceptable such as
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; james [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Danny
Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
... and we care because
no, i blame the solution. if fans in my switch keep dying, i blame the
manufacturer of the switch for picking an unreliable fan manufactuer, not
the manufacturer of the fan alone.
wrong. more than half of all problems i hear, the _fan_ is the OS or the
implementation by user, not
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; james [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Danny
Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
no, i blame
almost all times I hear people saying there is problem
with Zebra or Quagga, more than half of all times it
is problem with their OS, not the daemon.
and we care because? the router is a black box. if the
output is not what is expected, it matters not why.
though understandable, it is
Have been discussing PCs for a bit but as yet not deployed one, as I
understand it a *nix based PC running Zebra will work pretty fine but
has the constraints that:
o) It has no features - not a problem for a lot of purposes
This isnt necessarily a problem for what I have in mind
It
The main issues I have with zebra are:
1. The need to install an OS on the host.
2. The need to harden it.
3. The possible hard disk failure (having *nix on ATA flash is no better
given the actual limits in the number of times one can write to flash).
There are linux and freebsd
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Getting to 1mpps on a single router today will probably be hard. However,
I've been considering implementing a clustered router architecture,
should scale pps more or less linearly based on number of PCs or
routing nodes involved. I'm not sure if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o) lack of unified tools to configure and manage:
Each of those tools has varied degrees of documentation,
different configuration interface, vastly different
'status' interface, different support mailing lists, etc.
It is much easier for a given organization to
Not that I am pitching Zebra/Quagga/Gated/a brand of chewing gum/...
The main issues I have with zebra are:
1. The need to install an OS on the host.
2. The need to harden it.
These are also part of having access to more features. If you can use them.
3. The possible hard disk failure (having
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:06:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... and we care because? the router is a black box. if the output is not
what is expected, it matters not why. though understandable, it is still not
acceptable. /imho
and you blame zebra ?
There are so many many many
OSPF and ISIS, etc redistribution is a Zebra/etc function and I am told
it is pretty good at these functions.
multilink PPP? With spanning tree on multiple VLANs? With peer groups?
Most of these are OS functions, but I believe they support peer groups
in the later editions of the
One problem is that with Cisco, unless you are buying the largest
platforms available, each Cisco series uses different underlying
hardware with different performance characteristics and images. You need
to keep track of lots of separate images and versions when doing
upgrades. With a
On the topic of PC routers, I've fully given in to the zen
of Randy Bush. I FULLY encourage my competitor to use
them. :)
actually, i stole it from mike o'dell.
he also said something on the order of let's not bother to
discuss using home appliances to build a global network.
randy
He also said that Internet is growing by 1000% a year.
In fact I think that it is an extremely bad idea to use clusters of
enterprise boxes to build a global network.
--vadim
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
On the topic of PC routers, I've fully given in to the zen
of Randy
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
o) On a standard PCI but your limit is about 350Mb, you can increase that to a
couple of Gb using 64-bit fancy thingies
The limit is not megabit/s, it's packet per second (or rather, interrupts
per second). I-mix the average might be 350
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:34:00AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
o) On a standard PCI but your limit is about 350Mb, you can increase that to a
couple of Gb using 64-bit fancy thingies
The limit is not megabit/s, it's packet per second
I also think that it is extremely important to seperate what you can do
with a redhat cd and a dream from what someone can do with PC hardware.
Absolutely correct ;)
The bottom line is: You are only going to get so much performance when
you forward packets through a box which is processing
--On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:36 PM -0500 Daniel Golding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is one mechanism for helping to solve this. Is there an RFC,
informational or otherwise that clearly specifies that BGP announcements
to peers and transit providers must be aggregated to the greatest
I didn't say that I did it, but having a server with a backup OS image
in case your flash-drive fails isn't the worst thing in the world.
Especially for a remotely-adminstered POP.
How many flash drives will fail due to overwrite in a year? 1 per 1000?
if even? Its an absurd solution for an
I didn't say that I did it, but having a server with a backup OS image
in case your flash-drive fails isn't the worst thing in the world.
Especially for a remotely-adminstered POP.
Possibly I misunderstood your words: There's no problem having
backup image from network, but there's a
Hi Sean, long time no spar. :)
Going to Miami? I'll buy you a drink.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Jan 14, 2004, at 7:14 AM, Sean M.Doran wrote:
Unfortunately there has been a macroeconomic cost to the growth of
background noise in the Internet -- and the noise is still there --
which has made the
Deaggregation is at an all time high, I have raised this publically in some
forums and IXP ops lists. Response is poor, action is non-existent.
The only way I can see to do anything about this is for upstreams to educate
their customers and others to pressure their peers.
Two primary reasons
Deaggregation is at an all time high, I have raised this
publically in some forums and IXP ops lists. Response is
poor, action is non-existent.
The only way I can see to do anything about this is for
upstreams to educate their customers and others to pressure
their peers.
Two
On Jan 13, 2004, at 6:33 AM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
and that a large driver is to
make your network look larger than it is...
What audience??
Unfortunately, I've seen Peering Policies which require things like
Must announce a minimum of 5,000 prefixes. :(
--
TTFN,
patrick
Deaggregation is at an all time high, I have raised this publically in
some forums and IXP ops lists. Response is poor, action is non-existent.
The only way I can see to do anything about this is for upstreams to
educate their customers and others to pressure their peers.
or just filter
On Jan 13, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Deaggregation is at an all time high, I have raised this publically in
some forums and IXP ops lists. Response is poor, action is
non-existent.
The only way I can see to do anything about this is for upstreams to
educate their customers and others
The only way I can see to do anything about this is for upstreams to educate
their customers and others to pressure their peers.
Educating customers... educating peers... I think enough had been tried and that is
just too much work for the most people with little effect.
The problem is the
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Deaggregation is at an all time high, I have raised this publically in
some forums and IXP ops lists. Response is poor, action is
non-existent.
The only way I can see to
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Deaggregation is at an all time high, I have raised this publically in some
forums and IXP ops lists. Response is poor, action is non-existent.
The only way I can see to do anything about this is for upstreams to educate
their customers and others to pressure their
Ok, I am often outgunned and off target here.
But I have to ask this:
1. If filtering is used, as suggested by someone, what happens to the
small/mid-sized company that is multi-homed out of an ISP's
/20 or larger block? In this case, I can see an ISP with a /20
bust
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:12:13PM -0500, Craig Partridge wrote:
The basic issue here is the huge difference between a nice, dense, slow
and relatively cool [cheap!] DRAM and very fast, not so dense, and pretty hot
[and very expensive] SRAM. That Dell server has DRAM. Your route processor
On Jan 13, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Steve Francis wrote:
I'll take some education - given two POP's, different upstream ISPs at
each POP, and a desire to have traffic for specific networks (/24)
enter a specific POP, can that be done without de-aggregation?
We are not doing this ourselves - we're not
On Jan 13, 2004, at 2:35 PM, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
Ok, I am often outgunned and off target here.
But I have to ask this:
1. If filtering is used, as suggested by someone, what happens to the
small/mid-sized company that is multi-homed out of an ISP's
/20 or larger block? In this
Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Steve Francis wrote:
I'll take some education - given two POP's, different upstream ISPs
at each POP, and a desire to have traffic for specific networks (/24)
enter a specific POP, can that be done without de-aggregation?
We are not doing
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Michael Hallgren wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 6:33 AM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
Unfortunately, I've seen Peering Policies which require
things like Must announce a minimum of 5,000 prefixes. :(
Wonderful...
mh
Easy to fix by changing to covering N million
clearly spoken.
Unfortunately, they may have spoken a little too loudly, and now we
have /24s run amuck. :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Jan 13, 2004, at 4:04 PM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Michael Hallgren wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 6:33 AM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
Unfortunately, I've seen Peering Policies which require
things like Must announce a minimum of 5,000 prefixes. :(
Wonderful...
mh
Easy to fix by
And then there are the upstreams that filter legacy /24's
Seen that too...
- Original Message -
From: Patrick W.Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Patrick Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 15:13
Subject: Re: /24s run amuck
On Jan 13, 2004
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:12:13PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Answer: You don't. This is the type of deaggregation which is a
necessary evil. And, IMHO, why filtering on /20 (or whatever) is a
Bad Thing. You have just as much right to multiple upstreams as the
Filtering on a /20
Deaggregation is at an all time high, I have raised this publically in some
forums and IXP ops lists. Response is poor, action is non-existent.
The only way I can see to do anything about this is for upstreams to educate
their customers and others to pressure their peers.
I'll take
1. If filtering is used, as suggested by someone, what happens to the
small/mid-sized company that is multi-homed out of an ISP's
/20 or larger block? In this case, I can see an ISP with a /20
bust that up to /21s smaller to accommodate this user.
2. Wasn't /24 filtering
Ok, I realized I haven't done one of these since 2001, so it's time for an
updated list of /24 polluters. With /24s accounting for over 50% (more
than 71k) of the announcements on the Internet, it seems reasonable to try
and take a look at why there are so many.
One of the patterns which quickly
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
With all the recent talk about filtering, I figured now was a good time
to update my list of evil /24 announcers... There are currently over 63k
/24s out of 113k total unfiltered announcements (over 55%).
Does anyone (Cisco, Juniper, etc.)
89 matches
Mail list logo
