Does anybody know what are load balancing algorithms
by most routers ? Where can I more information about
this ?
thanks
Abhi
oh hey, does anyone on this list know how to make
cars go faster for most makes/models? heh, j/k ;
you might want to check out rfc2991 and rfc2992.
most routers
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Layer 3 devices usually do a form a load balancing called equal cost
forwarding. If you have two routes to a single prefix (say you have two
physical links), and both have the same routing cost, packets may be
load balanced across those
At 10:50 AM 8/04/2002 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
load balanced across those links. Some mechanisms (for example Cisco CEF)
can do this on a per-destination (flow-based) basis, to prevent packet
reordering.
I seem to remember fast switching was per-destination, and CEF was
round
Anyone knows what's going on with www.checkpoint.com ? I urgently need
'SecuRemote', could anyone send me sr-w2k-4185-strong.exe ?
Thanks,
Pascal
Hi,
I need someone in a senior position at verio.net (if on the list) to
contact me offlist, on something of a personal nature (no I am not looking
for a job).
--Ariel
--
Ariel Biener
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP(6.5.8) public key http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
R, leave this along will you... Nick is 14 years old and his word
can't be believed that much (see archives on that same isp-colo).
To me his post was no more then a bad joke...
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Paul Revere wrote:
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: Legal Recourse
*
Of all the places to try to get away with this type of thing It's like
{insert your favorite comparision here}
At 05:48 PM 4/6/2002 -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
Even better...the anonymous trolls!
- Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Of all the places to try to get away with this type of thing
It's like {insert your favorite comparision here}
A modernized version of Chief Joseph and the Trail of Tiers?
At 05:48 PM 4/6/2002 -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
Even better...the anonymous trolls!
- Dan
-Original
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:58:46PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Paul's statement about CEF is interesting. It's probably the first public
statement I've ever heard where someone was praising CEF. Usually
discussions about CEF are accompanied by liberal amounts of swearing...
I dunno;
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Chris Woodfield wrote:
If by round-robin you mean by destination only, then this is
correct.
The term round-robin refers to a schedule which cycles
through some number of things in a fixed order.
A packet arrives and the router makes a forwarding decision.
The things
Thus spake Mark Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
another thing is you will see increased latency and jitter as your
packets
individually queue for cpu process time
Thanks, that statement is significantly different than:
1) That is very deadly
2) If you want to crater your router, sure
both
Recently my personal system has been attacked by someone from the IRC
channel #nanog on EFNet. This along with multiple instances of
showing/providing pornography to minors as well as defamation of
character/slander as well as numerous other civil and criminal items
have really plagued my
NickCatal I think we can make money offering gig-e at the cost of a T1
I'll take two :-)
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
snipped
NickCatal naa.. my job in the new company is to make ideas and provide a
public face to the company.. a 14 year old selling enterprise hosting
looks good on Leno
Come on now, he's one of those 14 year old wonder kids that will change
Qwest fiber cut in dallas?
Has anyone head any thing. I heard this from an unconfirmed source.
thanks
--
Chief Security Engineer | Daniel Fairchild [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GCS d- s++:++ a- C++ UL P+++ L+++ E--- W++ N++ o+ K- w+
O M- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP+ t 5+ X-- R+ tv b++ DI++ D
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Conrad A. Rockenhaus wrote:
snipped
NickCatal naa.. my job in the new company is to make ideas and provide a
public face to the company.. a 14 year old selling enterprise hosting
looks good on Leno
Come on now, he's one of those 14 year old wonder kids that will
Hello Conrad,
Monday, April 8, 2002, 2:55:01 PM, you wrote:
NickCatal naa.. my job in the new company is to make ideas and provide a
public face to the company.. a 14 year old selling enterprise hosting
looks good on Leno
CAR Come on now, he's one of those 14 year old wonder kids that will
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CAR Come on now, he's one of those 14 year old wonder kids that will change
CAR the way we think of the Internet, go Generation Y
It's generation K-12:
http://latency.net/~asr/wcom.jpg
C|NK
Oh thats GOOD..
But... but... I've
CSO?
Cutting School to be Online.
-Bill
packet reordering at MAE East was extremely common a few years ago. Does
anyone have information whether this is still happening?
more to the point, does anybody still care about packet reordering at
exchange points? we (paix) go through significant effort to prevent it,
and interswitch
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Looks like www.gov.ps is offline. Wasn't someone in Norway operating a
backup site for this? IP address resoves to 212.14.253.243 which is not
routed at this time.
Doing a little research, it appears a substantial part of physical
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 15:26:18 -0400
From: Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(extensive snipping)
NickCatal FDDI can only support up to, maby, T1 speed..
NickCatal t1 = 1464kbps..
NickCatal I always thought FDDI was frame relay..
Oh... my... goodness... these almost make my
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
packet reordering at MAE East was extremely common a few years ago. Does
anyone have information whether this is still happening?
more to the point, does anybody still care about packet reordering at
exchange points? we (paix) go through significant
### On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:18:52 -0700, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] casually
### decided to expound upon [EMAIL PROTECTED] the following thoughts about
### packet reordering at exchange points:
PV packet reordering at MAE East was extremely common a few years ago. Does
PV anyone have
Hello network operators! I'm a Ph.D. student at UC Berkeley working for Dave
Patterson on the ROC project, which is investgiating techniques for
improving the availability and manageability of large-scale Internet
services and systems. I'm currently conducting a study of the root causes
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:19:56PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
But how is packet reordering on two parallell gigabit interfaces ever
going to translate into reordered packets for individual streams? Packets
Queue depths. Varying paths. IIRC, 802.3ad DOES NOT allow round
robin
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:45:16 -0400
From: Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Queue depths. Varying paths. IIRC, 802.3ad DOES NOT allow round
robin distribution; it uses hashes. Sure, hashed distribution
isn't perfect. But it's better than perfect distribution with
added
Hmm. Cogent does require some semi-strict traffic ratios to get the
really good deals. If it's not violating an NDA, is Qwest asking for
similar ones, these days?
- Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Alex Rubenstein
Sent:
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But how is packet reordering on two parallell gigabit interfaces
ever going to translate into reordered packets for individual
streams?
Think of a large FTP between two well-connected machines. Such flows tend
to generate periodic clumps of
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:32:50 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
Obviously some applications care. In addition to the examples mentioned
earlier: out of order packets aren't really good for TCP header
compression, so they will slow down data transfers over slow links.
On the other hand,
Paul-
more to the point, does anybody still care about packet reordering
at exchange points? we (paix) go through significant effort to
prevent it, and interswitch trunking with round robin would be a
lot easier. are we chasing an urban legend here, or would
reordering still cause pain?
All ISP's selling transit ask for strict traffic ratios.
How often do you think they get what they ask for? I
would guess not very often. People like flat rate 95th%
with no minimal commitment (both the seller and buyer)
because that's easy to keep track of. Simplicity is king,
again.
Um, wha?
There are providers that will do one-way billing (charging less per Mb/s
in one direction than the other), but the majority of usage-based transit
services are sold without regard to which directino the highest traffic
goes.
Now peering, that's a different story. Peering partners,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:35:17PM -0700, Gironda, Andre wrote:
I meant any sales guy selling transit would like to ask for strict
traffic ratios, while in reality, they don't actually do this.
Your email is right on otherwise. I do believe that many transit
offerings in the past and
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:19:56PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 00:32:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But how is packet reordering on two parallell gigabit interfaces
ever going to translate into reordered packets for individual
36 matches
Mail list logo
