It doesn't seem like that could be right. If you have ten ports and 36
cores, that's a lot of wasted cores.
On 6/5/2015 7:42 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Yuck… that’s not great at all … so what happens if a DOS attack comes
into the loopback address then? I’m trying to envision separation
between control plane and forwarding plane (or equivalent)…. Also
trying to figure out how the various processes in the OS are protected
from one another etc
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Faisal Imtiaz
*Sent:* Friday, June 5, 2015 3:44 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CCR1036-8G-2S+EM
I am not sure how I know this, either someone shared this with me or
it was somewhere in the forums....
On the CCR's each port has a dedicated core assigned to it....
Which is a good thing (cause your router will not come does in case of
DDOS)
and or Bad thing, if you are careless with your configuration e.g. use
a bridge config etc.
Regards
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Glen Waldrop" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Friday, June 5, 2015 2:57:50 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] CCR1036-8G-2S+EM
PCQ is suppose to use a core per connection, so in theory it
should have perfectly spread the load across all 36 cores. Instead
most cores were fairly low, one core was constantly pegged.
I did forget to mention that 6.7 had a severe port flapping issue,
but that was also when connected to my RB600 that had been hit by
lightning 3 times.
6.12 on an RB2011 works perfect connected to the same RB600. We
have the CCR in the cable plant now, mostly used as a dummy
switch, light routing. It will soon handle a heavier load, DNS and
ToD.
----- Original Message -----
*From:*Adam Moffett <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:*Friday, June 05, 2015 1:08 PM
*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] CCR1036-8G-2S+EM
Interesting.� I knew BGP was single threaded.� Apparently
multi-threading BGP was too complex (or something) and they
decided to optimize their algorithms instead.� I wasn't
aware that anything else was limited to a single thread.� I
sure hope that isn't still a thing.
We've got one, might have a different amount of RAM, don't
remember.
Worked okay, but my QoS rules hit one of 36 CPUs pretty
hard, the others were idling.
�
The cable engineer had to have a CCR because it was faster
than the Core i7 router I built for them. Turns out the
ponytailed computer guy *might* actually know what he's
talking about.
�
As far as routing, switching, etc, they seem to do fine.
With the QoS setup I have routing 250Mbps at the time, the
CCR couldn't spread the load over multiple cores. When I
disabled my QoS rules the CCR routed just fine at an idle.
A big part of the reason we went with MT for the edge was
the QoS control, so the CCR has now been assigned another job.
I think this was around 6.12 or so. Might work better now.
A lot of other things work better as of around 6.20.
�
�
�
----- Original Message -----
*From:*Paul Stewart <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:*Friday, June 05, 2015 10:18 AM
*Subject:*[AFMUG] CCR1036-8G-2S+EM
Anyone used one of these � any feedback?
�
I�m getting involved with a wireless expansion
project probably at some point and these Routerboard
CCR1036-8G-2S+EM were specified in the project plans.
�
Roughly speaking, 600-800Mb/s of traffic going through
them � roughly 2500 PPPOE users terminating on it
(BRAS).� This is just an estimate at this point�.
�
Whether I like it or not, it looks like I�m swimming
into Routerboard and Ubiquiti territory �. K
�
Thanks,
Paul
�
�
