Mikael Abrahamsson writes on 10/15/2003 10:42 AM:
to the headers, that's it. Also, it just continues to add to the
SMTP-headers of the email (doesnt start fresh with what mail servers has
been passed), so I am not sure that theory holds water that this was an
accident.
In mutt, it'd be edit and
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 03:29:01PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson writes on 10/15/2003 10:42 AM:
to the headers, that's it. Also, it just continues to add to the
SMTP-headers of the email (doesnt start fresh with what mail servers has
been passed), so I am not
and I would be happy to see the list owner come
down hard on the perp. Banishment?
You should make sure you know who the perp is before making such
pronouncements (or maybe it doesn't matter).
Not really. It's the list owner who should know who the perp is
before taking action.
In any case,
Message-
From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:02 PM
To: Richard A Steenbergen; Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
So a 7500 with a fast cache is a L3 switch? :)
Of course. It does
Bradley Dunn wrote:
[...]
Adding more specifics of a /8, /16, or /24 prefix seems to
have a disproportionate impact; my guess is it has something to do with
the data structure used to store the prefixes. (If they use a 256-way
mtrie like they do for CEF, more specifics of a /8, /16, or /24
]
Resent-Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
to the headers, that's it. Also, it just continues to add to the
SMTP-headers of the email (doesnt start fresh with what mail servers has
been passed), so I am not sure that theory holds water that this was an
accident.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based
architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF enabled
Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has instructions on their
webpage on how deal with it and
This is the kicker and real question: does it require the CPU to forward
regular traffic? I believe the answer is yes, the Extreme is a flow-based
architecture and the first packet of each unique flow (however it is
defined) will need to be processed by the CPU. This is why the problems
Yes,
I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based
architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF enabled
Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has instructions on their
webpage on how deal with it and cites CPU usage as the reason. With CEF I
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Andy Walden wrote:
I don't know of anyone else who *routes* ICMP. Yes, ICMP packets destined
for the router, but Extreme actually CPU route all ICMP packets passing
thru.
I'm not 100% sure what your trying to say above, but all I'm refering to
is packets destined
I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based
architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF
enabled Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has
instructions on their webpage on how deal with it and cites CPU
usage as the reason. With CEF I
Firstly, a BIG BIG thanks to all the replies.
I would like to add one comment onto this, the Black Diamonds would be used
for purely switching and nothing else.
The Junipers would do the routing, BGP tables etc...
As for as TheTollyGroup how much credibility do these guys hold?
Thanks again.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote:
I would like to add one comment onto this, the Black Diamonds would be used
for purely switching and nothing else.
Then you're betting on the right horse. Get the G8Xi cards and two MSMs
per chassi and you have linerate everything.
As for as
any more questions.
Best Regards,
Shazad
eServers - driving the e into your business.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Sweet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 October 2003 15:43
To: Shazad - eServers
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Shazad,
Are you going to do colocation
: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Shazad,
Where is your datacenter located?
Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Shazad - eServers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:52 AM
To: 'Matthew Sweet'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Matt,
Yes we
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote:
AGGREG : These would be a mix of Extreme Alpines/BigIron4000 - 8000/Summit
48i's depending on whether we are offering colo, ded-hosting, managed
services etc...
ACCESS : Extreme Summit 24e3 or Foundry series.
I recommend you to stay away from
:12
To: Shazad - eServers
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
From: Shazad - eServers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Randy Bush' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate all the
comments
I am receiving.
Please don't hesitate to contact us
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: 13 October 2003 16:09
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote:
AGGREG : These would be a mix of Extreme Alpines/BigIron4000 - 8000/Summit
48i's depending on whether we are offering colo
- eServers
Sent: 13 October 2003 16:13
To: 'Randy Bush'
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 October 2003 16:12
To: Shazad - eServers
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
From: Shazad - eServers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Randy
At 16:39 13/10/2003, you wrote:
M apologies, There was no need for him to go around calling me a dumb
f***. I apologies, I didn't realise I had posted his message onto the nanog
mailing list..
Marketroids using public mailing lists for sales leads should learn list
etiquette and reply etiquette
You know what, go and fuck yourself you little whore..
Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions.
Best Regards,
Shazad
eServers - driving the e into your business.
This is the second time recently that a member of
this list has dragged their own personal disputes
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Shazad - eServers
Sent: 13 October 2003 16:13
To: 'Randy Bush'
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 October 2003 16:12
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:39:09PM +0100, Shazad - eServers wrote:
My apologies, There was no need for him to go around calling me a dumb
f***.
I apologies, I didn't realise I had posted his message onto the nanog
mailing list..
If the shoe fits...
Is it just me, or could nanog really
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel
Rowbottom
Sent: 13 October 2003 16:46
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
At 16:39 13/10/2003, you wrote:
M apologies, There was no need for him to go around calling me a dumb
f***. I apologies, I didn't realise I had posted his
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Andy Walden wrote:
Actually, as far as I know, all switches and routers use the CPU to
process ICMP. It is a control protocol and the safest option is to
ensure the vendor has implemented some sort of CPU rate-limiting so it
can't be overwhelmed.
Redbacks SmartEdge 800
Don't mean to get off-topic... but speaking the Extremes..
Has anyone here had luck with doing some BGP stuff with Sumit 48i?
Thanks,
-hc
--
Haesu C.
TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
Consulting, colocation, web hosting, network design and implementation
http://www.towardex.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Is it just me, or could nanog really benefit from being moderated, or at
least nanog-post being access controlled? God knows why I've kept skimming
it even after the majority of actual clueful network operators have long
Are you volunteering
This is the second time recently that a member of
this list has dragged their own personal disputes
onto the list. I don't particularly like this
and I would be happy to see the list owner come
down hard on the perp. Banishment?
You should make sure you know who the perp is before making
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard A Steenbergen
Sent: 13 October 2003 16:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:39:09PM +0100, Shazad - eServers wrote:
My apologies, There was no need
Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond Date: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 12:19:20PM -0400 Quoting
Haesu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Don't mean to get off-topic... but speaking the Extremes..
Has anyone here had luck with doing some BGP stuff with Sumit 48i?
Not beyond lab setups, but yes, they speak BGP. We
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Haesu wrote:
Don't mean to get off-topic... but speaking the Extremes..
Has anyone here had luck with doing some BGP stuff with Sumit 48i?
Yes. The only thing I miss in their implementation is the equivalent of
neighbor ip default-originate.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson
last reply.
Best Regards,
Shazad
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 October 2003 17:29
To: Richard A Steenbergen
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Richard
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Mans Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond Date: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 12:19:20PM -0400
Quoting Haesu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Don't mean to get off-topic... but speaking the Extremes..
Has anyone here had luck with doing some BGP stuff with Sumit 48i
]
Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:58:55 +0100
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
Just don't use extremes as routers, and you will be much, much happier. It
_might_ work in the dumbest, unicast-only setups, but I have a lot of
doubts about anything more complex than that.
I think you're being too pessimistic. For instance, some of
Shazad wrote:
I did it accidentally BUT quoted him, he literally bounced my
message as If I had sent it to NANOG. Check your headers and
you will find out, I never sent that message to NANOG.
Indeed. Although you did screw up by quoting his first private message,
it does appear to me like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, GSRs are better at routing but they lack L2 capability and it's
a
very expensive (and lousy unless you have Engine3 cards) GE
plattform.
Steinar Haug
On the other hand, 6500s can do both L2 and L3 rather well, including
BGP.
Aren't most of the 6500 blades
On the other hand, 6500s can do both L2 and L3 rather well, including
BGP.
Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between
these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router
with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good
[substitutions for offensive terms are mine]
You know what, go and [run windows] yourself you little [manager]..
Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions.
Best Regards,
Shazad
eServers - driving the e into your business.
This is the second time
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy
Sent: October 13, 2003 1:21 PM
To: Shazad - eServers; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:52:59PM +0100, Shazad - eServers wrote
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between
these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router
with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good
routing capabilities.
Does the 7600 have
On Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:19:21PM -0700, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between
these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router
with very good switching capabilities
7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:19:21PM -0700, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between
7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal.
Yep, I think from now on, we should make this a primary distinction
between switch and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is a
router, if horizontal, it is a switch.
Works well for 7500/12000/5x00/6500. ;)
-alex
6500-NEBS has also vertical boards ...
Arnold
On Monday, October 13, 2003 10:37 PM, Robert A. Hayden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:19:21PM -0700, Tom (UnitedLayer)
At 04:43 PM 10/13/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal.
Yep, I think from now on, we should make this a primary distinction
between switch and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is a
router, if horizontal, it is a switch.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote:
I've still yet to see anything that suggests that the difference
between the 7600 and the 6500 is more than just a paint job and a
marketting job.
On Monday, October 13, 2003 10:37 PM, Robert A. Hayden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7600 is also
A small problem... all of my 7200s have horizontal line cards as do the
Juniper M5/7/10/20. The smaller 7100, 3700, 3600, 2600 also have
horizontal line cards too. So... here is a correction.
From now on, we should make this a primary distinction between switch
and a router: If a device
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand how you can differentiate between a router and an L3
switch. In my view L3 switch is a marketing term. All high end boxes
do hardware based IP forwarding, whether their ancestry is from the L2
or the L3 side.
To me something
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote:
Does the 7600 have the same BGP Scanner problem as the 6509 does?
I've still yet to see anything that suggests that the difference between
the 7600 and the 6500 is more than just a paint job and a marketting job.
Whee! Even more of a reason not to
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you could expand on the BGP scanner problems - we haven't seen
them all the time we've been running 6500 native with full routes (about
1.5 years now).
BGP Scanner taking up close to 100% of CPU on a box periodically.
GSR doesn't seem to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Boyle wrote:
|
| At 04:43 PM 10/13/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| 7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal.
|
| Yep, I think from now on, we should make this a primary distinction
| between switch and a router: If a
75xx/GSR, dCEF? 75xx/GSR are L3 switches then. ;) Not to add
flame-bait, but..
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/switch_c/xcprt2/xcdcef.htm
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand how you can
Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you could expand on the BGP scanner problems - we haven't seen
them all the time we've been running 6500 native with full routes (about
1.5 years now).
BGP Scanner taking up close to 100% of CPU on a box
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:10:32PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand how you can differentiate between a router and an L3
switch. In my view L3 switch is a marketing term. All high end boxes
do hardware based IP forwarding,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:15:59PM -0700, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you could expand on the BGP scanner problems - we haven't seen
them all the time we've been running 6500 native with full routes (about
1.5 years now).
BGP Scanner
bgp scanner cpu usage == number of neighbors * number of routes in table
lots of neighbors would cause this, for longer periods. If running
SUP1A/MSFC this could be worse than with MSFC2 (slightly more CPU
power), and much worse than SUP2 I'm guessing.
Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Steve Francis wrote:
Doesn't happen here with MSFC2/SupII.
Maybe just MSFC1's that are subject to that.
That is possible, but I didn't see it on a 7500 till I started taking more
than 1 full table.
Robert Boyle wrote:
From now on, we should make this a primary distinction between
switch and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is
a router, if horizontal, it is a switch, unless there are two
or more vertical slots within any horizontal slot plane, then
it is, in fact, a
Not to mention that apparently if you turn off route-caching completely,
you will make a router out of any l3 switch (since all packet forwarding
will equally slow)
-alex
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Jason LeBlanc wrote:
75xx/GSR, dCEF? 75xx/GSR are L3 switches then. ;) Not to add
flame-bait,
Steve Francis wrote:
BGP Scanner taking up close to 100% of CPU on a box periodically.
GSR doesn't seem to do it, but a buncha other cisco boxes do.
Its more irritating than anything else, especially when customers
complain
that when they traceroute they see ~200ms latency to the router...
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
So a 7500 with a fast cache is a L3 switch? :)
Of course. It does wire-speed switching with one and
Possibly more CX-EIP6 if you enable dCEF :-)
Michel.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote:
How are these for CORE SWITCHES (distribution) compared to BigIron and the
CISCO 6509?
From what I have heard and reports they are very solid switches.
Some things to know about them:
They use CPU to route ICMP just like all Extreme equipment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote:
How are these for CORE SWITCHES (distribution) compared to BigIron and the
CISCO 6509?
From what I have heard and reports they are very solid switches.
Some things to know about them:
They
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote:
How are these for CORE SWITCHES (distribution) compared to BigIron and the
CISCO 6509?
From what I have heard and reports they are very solid switches.
As long as you only use them for switching, they're fine :)
For routing, I wouldn't touch em
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Andy Walden wrote:
Actually, as far as I know, all switches and routers use the CPU to
process ICMP. It is a control protocol and the safest option is to ensure
the vendor has implemented some sort of CPU rate-limiting so it can't be
overwhelmed.
I don't know of anyone
66 matches
Mail list logo
