[snip]
To inject science into the discussion:
http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performance_lab_of_an_ibm_system_x3550_m3_with_10-gigabit_intel_x540-at2
And he maintains a test setup to check for performance regressions:
[resurrecting this thread, as it's been a while since I read nanog-ml,
and this is surprisingly important to me...]
On 19 October 2013 15:36, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
abha ahuja, researcher and operator, died this day in 2001 at a
tragically early age. if you did not know her, search a
On Fri, May 27, 2011, George Bonser wrote:
It's actually rather hard with current pc hardware to get to multiple
cores engaged in paralell per input interfaces. while you can plan for
various cases the the one to account for is the small packet
performance not overwhelming the
On Thu, May 26, 2011, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Sorry, poorly worded. What I was wondering is there is an equivalent of
KA9Q for IPv6. I believe one of the comments we got back when we were
trying to reclaim 44/8 was that folks couldn't migrate to IPv6 because
no software was available...
On Thu, May 19, 2011, Warren Kumari wrote:
Just wanted to say yes, this is entirely what I meant. Of course the
smaller the file the more pointless it gets but still... If the file was
1GB instead of just 7 bytes I'm wondering if a regular old workstation could
put it back together in
On Fri, May 13, 2011, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I always liked seeing the string tli in the IOS bundle in those days.
Whoa, you mean Cisco IOS images have built by names other than prod rel
team ?
(heh.)
Adrian
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011, Jay Ashworth wrote:
(cough)multicast(cough)
But... but... how do we count the viewers, then?
With HTML cookies and AJAX, like everyone else[1].
Adrian
[1] and small embedded flash apps in small frames. Hi Facebook.
If it's a true research project, wouldn't you really be interested in both
evidence for/against? :-)
Just my 2c here,
Adrian
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Curran, David wrote:
I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities
would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution,
possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial
entity to come in and offer layer 3
There's a wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS_7007_incident
.. that a post I wrote up for a local computer club magazine somehow suffices
as primary reference material for.
Even though I think this is partially hilarious, would someone mind making
it a little more authoritive and
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
I try to install C-Band bandpass filter, no effect at all, so it is in-band
interference. Putting foil (yes i try almost everything) near LNB doesn't
affect interference level too.
Can you get access to some kind of spectrum analyser kit to
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
On Tuesday 08 February 2011 14:18:59 Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
I try to install C-Band bandpass filter, no effect at all, so it is
in-band
interference. Putting foil (yes i try almost
if it's running a recent net80211 stack, you'll need to create a vap sttion
interface first
eg, ifconfig wlan0 create wlandev rum0
then do stuff to wlan0, not rum0.
Adrian
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011, Atticus wrote:
Im not familiar with wpa_supplicant, but you can preface external commands
to
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
with the iana free pool run-out, i guess we won't be getting those nice
graphs any more. might we have one last one for the turnstiles? :-)/2
and would you mind doing the curves now for each of the five rirs?
gotta give us all something to repeat
s/IPv6/ATM/g
Just saying...
Adrian
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 13:01, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv4 is very dead in the sense that it's not going to go anywhere in the
future.
taking the long view - your statement applies equally to IPv6.
(Top-posting because the whole message is context. Oh, and I'm lazy.)
I do indeed love it when people break out IPv6 addressing as
there's so many addresses, we'll never ever go through them!
Sure, if they're only used as end-point identifiers.
Say you want to crack out that 64k-port space into
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
I suggest using one of the reserved/private BGP asns for this purpose.
ASNumber: 64512 - 65535
It sounds to me like Company B isn't doing BGP (probably has no experience
with it) and if there's only a
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011, Jon Lewis wrote:
Unless you'd like to ensure the sensitive traffic doesn't cross an
unsafer default rout path if the XC is down.
BGP would have that same issue since B is default routing to their
provider.
[config for B]
ip route A's prefix mask gw to A
ip route
So along simlar lines, Ubiquiti sell routerstation pro boards with
sequential MAC addresses.
The trouble is they've allocated a single MAC for the first port - the
second ethernet port (also attached to the bridge) doesn't get a second
MAC.
So in a purchase of a few hundred boards, we had plenty
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
[Frank Bulk]
Some MSOs (including ourselves) have power systems (e.g. Alpha) in place
throughout the plant to provide backup power for at least some time.
Does that back up the cablemodem in the residence? If not, game over.
Thing is, not
Hi all,
I have a customer who is looking for examples of WCCPv2 deployments
for traffic levels 3 gige (and above, up to 10ge.)
Now I know that theoretically there's no reason why this shouldn't
be the case, but as I don't have a lab of 10GE capable Cisco L3 devices,
I'm unable to verify that
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
The private sector (FedEx/UPS, etc...) brought us overnight delivery
where USPS couldn't...
...and next-day air
...and freight delivery
...and package tracking that reports more than just We don't know where it
is/It's at the post office
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 9/12/10 7:49 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 18:34 +1100, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 9/12/10 8:04 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Philip Dorr tagn...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that they were also
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Be careful - plenty of Squid's make HTTP/1.0 version.
make HTTP/1.0 requests, not version. Tsk.
(And here I am, studying linguistics. Pshaw.)
Adrian
Botnets are the symptom.
The real problem is people.
Adrian
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Other than trying to hide your real address, what can be done to prevent
DDOS in the first place.
DDoS is just a symptom.
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The real problem is people.
Well, yes - but short of mass bombardment, eliminating people doesn't scale
very well, and is generally frowned upon.
;
I think history can conclusively state
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010, Ken Chase wrote:
And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier
and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of
and
responce to that kind of request.
Except of course when you're asked not to share what has
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
(OK, so it's not as practical when you have other customers to worry
about... but it might not be so crazy when you're looking at the
efficiency numbers for 100,000 small 1u power supplies vs a set
of much larger ones.)
Ohm's law is a bitch.
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010, Ken Chase wrote:
This is always the best way to deal with disagreement.
But I think this is the wrong list to tender such contracts. Also, it's odd
you
hate DDOS's more than murder. Time to take some time off work perhaps?
For the first time I'm hoping to not meet
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010, Andy Davidson wrote:
Not withstanding Mikael's comments that it shouldn't be lossy, at times when
you want to simulate lossy (and jittery, and shaped, and ) conditions,
the best way I have found to do this is FreeBSD's dummynet :
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010, Jacob Broussard wrote:
Wow... Reading this thread I feel like some sort of time traveler, what with
my cable internet, multicore processor, and smartphone.
Hi, I'm from the year 2000. I've got my cable internet, some prototype DSP/CPU
combination cores that I've been
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010, Randy Bush wrote:
http://www.fpsn.net/?pg=toolstool=ipv6-inaddr
windows mentality, wrap it all in a complex gui that also washes your
car.
use simple hack that just takes an ipv6 address and makes the bleeping
reversed dotted to death lhs of the ptr record.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010, Cutler James R wrote:
Jack,
I agree that whois is hard. Please explain how you knew to query AS701 when
Serg asked about AS702.
Brainfart. I understand why people confuse 701 with 702.
$ whois -h whois.ripe.net AS702
% Information related to 'AS702'
aut-num:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Leo Bicknell wrote:
If you could number your internal network out of some IPv6 space
(possibly 1918 style, possibly not), probably a /48, and then get
from your two (or more) upstreams /48's of PA space you could do
1:1 NAT. No PAT, just pure address translation, 1:1.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
The IPv4 space here was retired in 2009. We love the IVI
translator code. Whats keeping the rest of you?
Just hazarding a guess:
router# conf t
router(config)# ipv6 ivi enable
router(config)# ^Z
Adrian
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
caught out by collisions.
The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
someone out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess.
You assume that
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010, ym1r...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I know open source solutions doesn't have support for fabric or
high speed asics. So the throughput will always be a big difference. Unless
you are comparing a pure packet software interrupt platform.
Hasn't there been a post about
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Not high speed ASICs, but there are hardware-forwarding open-source(in
a broad definition) solutions:
http://netfpga.org
There are 3 related presentations on NANOG 50, which suggests these
solutions are reaching real ops quality.
I hate to sound
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010, Matthew Walster wrote:
I once read an article talking about making BitTorrent scalable by
using anycasted caching services at the ISP's closest POP to the end
user. Given sufficient traffic on a specified torrent, the caching
device would build up the file, then
Guys/girls/furry-creatures-from-!Earth,
Complaining on nanog-ml is likely to only achieve personal stress relief.
This is something you should bring up with your vendor. Say that you'll
move vendors if they don't start making better BGP implementations and
adding the features you guys want. Make
The official answer: commodity hardware doesn't handle all the features needed
at line rate.
The (more often than not) unofficial answer: using a custom platform
raises the entry barrier for cloning/abuse/etc. It's a bit hard to
run your appliance MIPS software on an off-the-shelf PC; but it
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Why does it cost $100 million to install and configure OpenBSD on a
bunch of old systems?
I think you've misunderstood the question if you think openbsd on
old systems is the answer.
:)
Adrian
There's been plenty of multi-dimensional processor interconnects over the
years. You should do some further research. :)
Adrian
(hypercube-connected O2000, anyone?)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010, ?? wrote:
Hello, all.
I am not sure is it suitable or not that I ask this question here.
My
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010, Michael Sokolov wrote:
OK, I'll bite and add my 2 Russian kopecks to the Cisco vs. Linux router
thread.
It's ok. I'll trade you Russian for Australian currency. I don't know
which is going to be better in the long run.
With non-Ethernet WAN interfaces one really needs an
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if I were currently engaged in this business,
I'd pay. Both for the ability to ask questions and the ability to be asked
questions by a sensible group of people with similar goals (ie, non-trolling)
in mind[1].
And to follow
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010, Larry Sheldon wrote:
You might not have the state inspection rip-off, but I'll bet that if
your state accepts federal highway money, you have mechanical condition
standards that include tires, brakes, seat belts and a lot of other things.
.. and a change in the minimum
On Fri, May 28, 2010, Ken Gilmour wrote:
Yes sir I have used SSG for several years but mainly used BSD for the last
decade and most recently OpenBSD. There is an easy fix for this on PF for
OpenBSD and that is to tag the packets from each provider (as in not using
802.1q but a specific
We replaced our OpenBSD routers with these SRXes since they were supposed to
be multifunction devices (gateways and routers at the same time) which was
the selling point. So we expected them to do asymmetric routing and were
told they could, easily, but apparently they are not acting normally
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Fortunately, the IPv6 address space is so large and sparse, that
scanning it would be quite a feat, even if a random outside attacker
already knew for a fact that a certain /64 probably contains a
vulnerable host.
All I need to do is run a
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010, Joly MacFie wrote:
I also grabbed the list http://isoc-ny.org/wiki/Networking
Thanks to all who contributed.
Please feel free to add a link to the above url in the nanog wiki.
j
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@creative.net.au wrote:
On Fri
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010, Perry Lorier wrote:
One of my colleagues here (Shane Alcock) did some research into Service
Provider NAT based off passive traces from a New Zealand Residential
ISP[1]. By passively looking at connections he investigated how you
could dimension a NAT box for an ISP.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010, joel jaeggli wrote:
my load balancer needs 16 ips for every million simultaneous
connections, so does yours.
Only because it hasn't broken the spec further. :)
adrian
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010, Randy Bush wrote:
i figure it'll be a fun community meeting i sf. i suggest we go back
to serving the alcohol first. :)
Two scotch minimum before participating in discussions?
Adrian
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has
usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying
anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not
encourage adoption of IPv6, where suddenly there'd
On Sat, Apr 03, 2010, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Step 1: specify an IP option for extra low order bits of source
destination address. Add handling of these to the popular OSes.
Don't IP options translate to handle in slow path on various routing
platforms? :)
THat makes leave backbones unchanged
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
So, what are you having your up-and-coming NOC staff read?
Since I thought this was worthwhile summarising, I've dumped
it on the mail topics page in the Wiki:
http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/MailTopics
I specifically left out the programming
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
None of the large, well-known Web properties on the Internet today - at
least, the ones which stay up and running, heh - have stateful firewalls in
front of them. Including prominent vendors of said stateful firewall
solutions.
But as you
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010, Stefan Fouant wrote:
Almost all of the scalable DDoS mitigation architectures deployed in
carriers or other large enterprises employ the use of an offramp method.
These devices perform a lot better when you can forward just the subset of
the traffic through as opposed to
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Existing hardware does this today with NetFlow, et. al.
.. not only that, we've been doing this for a bloody long time in
internet years. About all that really matter is figuring out how
to engineer your network to allow for netflow based billing
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
If you don't like the service you're getting, vote with your money and
buy from someone else. This is quite simply not a NANOG issue, but in
the interests of being helpful the best advice I can give you is this:
Your request is
Take a read of the quagga documentation. There's a BGP neighbor option
for stripping out the local AS when speaking eBGP.
Adrian
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009, Sherwin Ang wrote:
Hello Nanog,
am not sure if i should have placed this on the cisco-nsp or the
juniper-nsp but someone may have a direct
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009, Jeroen Massar wrote:
But yes, the network stack itself is a different question, then again,
you can just route a /64 into the loopback device and let your apache
listen there... (which also allows you to do easy-failover as you can
move that complete /64 to a different
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What does that have to with anything? IPv6 stateless autoconfig
predates the widespread use of DHCPv4.
So does IPX and IPX/RIP.
Why does this thread seem to rehash some big disconnect between
academics, IETF and actual deployment-oriented
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009, Alex Balashov wrote:
oh my goodness. You're behind on your reading...
I didn't mean DPI. I meant in a way that can be inferred from the
headers themselves, and aside from the port number.
You don't think that statistical analysis of traffic patterns
of your UDP
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009, Alex Balashov wrote:
I was not aware that tools or techniques to do this are widespread or
highly functional in a way that would get them adopted in an Internet
access control application of a national scope.
Tell me more?
It's been a while since I tinkered with
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Corner cases like the one above are barely noise, so the curve it
still valid.
Strictly speaking, with the subject of Science vs bullshit, you and msa
have named a hypothesis, no? Can either of you think of a way to disprove
that, and if so,
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009, Adrian Minta wrote:
1 sender
1 mcast group
2+ receivers on same VLAN and physical segment
= data loss
Probably a crappy switch.
specifically, is your switch doing frame replication on ingress
or egress? :)
adrian
Nathan Ward, please stand up.
Adrian
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, TJ wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Justin
To go along with Dan's query from above, what are the preferred methods
that other SPs are using to deploy IPv6 with non-IPv6-capable edge
hardware? We too have a very limited
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
site multihoming. The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an
ISP but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
been how long now? PI,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
but on the IPv6 side we've just got
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
Are we talking about bit rate, which one might expect to be modified
by environmental characteristics and is in fact very tightly
controlled to prevent that, or traffic volume?
Not true with modem type technologies, where the available transmission
howdy,
I'm chasing a technical contact at Facebook. There's some broken HTTP being
served which is confusing Squid in a way that isn't easily, cleanly
worked around.
Please feel free to contact me off-list.
Thanks,
Adrian
A few people have asked what the specific problem is.
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-dev/200910/0089.html
Adrian
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009, Adrian Chadd wrote:
howdy,
I'm chasing a technical contact at Facebook. There's some broken HTTP being
served which is confusing Squid
to go direct to the proxy it
does not seem to have the same issue. (At least so far).
- Jared
On Oct 9, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
A few people have asked what the specific problem is.
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-dev/200910/0089.html
Adrian
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
A lesson learned is that thinking about
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
I'm sorry, but seeing a good fraction of my local IX simply containing
a few ISP's deaggregated view of their local internal networks versus
a sensible allocation policy makes me cry. IPv6 may just make this
worse. IPv6 certainly won't make it
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009, Philip Lavine wrote:
To all,
I am running a Windows based high performance computing application that uses
reliable multicast (29West) on a gigabit LAN. All systems are logically on
the same VLAN and even on the same physical switch The application is set to
use an
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
We used to have a lot of people buying IP's in bulk for SEO. They
would all cancel within one or two months citing that they couldn't
afford it or the project failed, etc. Guess they realized that the
whole thing is a myth.
.. or, which is more likely
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009, Petersen, Mark wrote:
FreeBSD provides support for 802.11q, bgpd, ospfd, pf(firewall) and
ALTQ(QOS) but since I haven't tested it I have no idea what kind of real
world performance you can get with all these features in use.
This is one group trying to pony up at least
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009, William Pitcock wrote:
I don't need any of that stuff, just BGP, OSPF and fast packet
forwarding for IPv4. But the point is that I need only routing
functionality, I don't need switching functionality like on a Cisco
6500-class system.
I bet if you went and spoke to
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009, Charles Wyble wrote:
I did. Still getting pounded.
And its not covered by your SLA?
Adrian
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009, Roland Perry wrote:
Unfortunately, the number of students polling the website for news means
it can't cope with the traffic. I don't believe they can justify paying
more for better web hosting, just to manage this once-a-year half hour
event.
Is Twitter making a
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Adrian Chaddadr...@creative.net.au wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a provider of an
interactive computer service to go by the
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009, Randy Bush wrote:
and why do we think that throwing a jillion bodies at the problem is a
useful approach?
No, but it does keep people employed.
Sorry, I think I reached a new low in my stabby, jaded level when
a past employer (a network consulting firm) blasted me for
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years
If the people with operational experience stop going, you can't blame the group
for
being full of vendors.
Methinks
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, Leo Bicknell wrote:
It's the technological equvilient of bringing everyone into a
conference room and then having them use their cell phones to call
each other and talk across the table. Why are you all in the same
room if you don't want a shared medium?
Because you
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009, Holmes,David A wrote:
But I recollect that FORE ATM equipment using LAN Emulation (LANE) used
a broadcast and unknown server (BUS) to establish a point-to-point ATM
PVC for each broadcast and multicast receiver on a LAN segment. As well
as being inherently unscalable (I
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009, Steven Champeon wrote:
[snip interode related hostnames such as this]
adsl.adelaide.on.net
That's a safe assumption.
Unfortunately, it's not. Even more unfortunately, we see more junk
from their generic statics than we do from their obvious dynamics.
Have
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009, Norrie, David wrote:
article discussed below. I would appreciate it if someone does find the
article if they can provide a copy/link to this :
http://markmail.org/message/hzwfh27bgtitadpq
(First hit from googling c-nsp rodney dunn NPE-G2 CPU)
Make sure you read all the
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009, Michael K. Smith wrote:
We use Apache with mod_security and mod_proxy to do this, although the
application is more as an application layer firewall than an SSL offloader.
It works well for lower traffic applications; I haven't tested it under the
loads that are
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009, Bill Blackford wrote:
Can the 32 handle a full table?
Start here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cisco-...@puck.nether.net/msg12492.html
adrian
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009, Bill Blackford wrote:
Thank you to everyone who offered advice. I thinks it's clearer what my path
should be.
Incidentally, I am using 7300/7200 based units with G1 RP and found that at
200M they start seeing 50% CPU load which is why I'm looking to go to the
next
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009, Leen Besselink wrote:
If you had to choose, it's probably smarted to go with OpenBSD, it has a
lot better integration of packet filter, bgpd-daemon, ospf, vrrp-like, etc.
If you'd like a hope in hell of handling higher packet rates, where
higher packet rates is more than
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009, Bob Snyder wrote:
Frank Bulk wrote:
Considering that the only real IPv6-ready CPE at your favorite N.A.
electronics store is Apple's AirPort, it seems to me that it will be
several years before the majority (50% plus 1) of our respective customer
bases has IPv6-ready
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009, Brian Keefer wrote:
If anyone would like to drop me a line off-list to point me in the
right direction, I'd be very grateful. So far the most useful
information I've found on the topic has been via this list.
PS I'm talking specifically about Linux. The FreeBSD
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
Kevin Loch wrote:
Just how DO we get the message to the IETF that we need all the tools we
have in v4 (DHCP, VRRP, etc) to work with RA turned off?
You don't, because there isn't really a technical reason for turning off
RA. RA is used as a starting
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009, Tony Hain wrote:
No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from IPv4. If
anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is specify
it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF has
resulted in the situation
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
So, those people don't use DHCP in IPv4 if this is a concern, so I'm
guessing they are not hoping to use DHCPv6 either.
Static configuration of IP addressing information and other
configuration will work just fine for them.
I wonder, do they use
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
Yep. You asked your vendors to support equivalent IPv6 things at the
time though, so when you roll out IPv6 the support is ready, right?
The point is that these deficiencies exist in IPv4, and I'm not sure
how you would solve them in IPv6
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
On the other hand, the fact that various entities have gone out of their
way to advertise that they're running old hardware/out-of-date software
has been noted elsewhere. I'd strongly suggest, if you're reading NANOG,
that you update, before
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
