* David Conrad d...@virtualized.org [2014-05-07 00:21]:
The fact that OpenBSD developers continue to defend this choice is
one reason why I won't run OpenBSD (or CARP).
We won't miss you.
And besides, you're running plenty of our code every day. It's probaby
in your pocket right now.
Any
* Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net [2014-05-07 03:54]:
That the BSD community sometimes doesn't play well with others
Translation: not bowing for corporate US america.
Quite proudly so.
certainly won't fess up when they make a mistake
wrong. I have no problem admitting mistakes. And that's
On 5 April 2014 07:44, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
Offered for your amusement--no followup.
http://kottke.org/14/04/the-anternet
--
A forager won't return to the nest until it finds food. If seeds are
plentiful, foragers return faster, and more ants leave the nest to
forage.
This has always been the case, and traffic splay and origin/sink
management has been more important than cost savings since at
least 2002? Maybe 2001. Definitely before 2004.
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:42:06PM -0700, wbn wrote:
Hi fellow NANOGers -
I recently spent some time with peering
Constantine,
Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:11:04PM -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Except it wasn't useless: it was, in fact, in use by VRRP.
Further, the OpenBSD developers chose to squat on 240 for pfsync -
a number that has
Hello,
I'm currently writing a paper for school and I talk about net neutrality
which brings the subject of NetFlow/IPFIX.
Should those protocols be considered as tools to perform DPI ?
Thanks,
Antoine.
On 05/07/14 15:11 +0200, Antoine Meillet wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently writing a paper for school and I talk about net neutrality
which brings the subject of NetFlow/IPFIX.
Should those protocols be considered as tools to perform DPI ?
That question can be taken a couple of ways. Netflow is
On May 7, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Antoine Meillet antoine.meil...@gmail.com wrote:
Should those protocols be considered as tools to perform DPI ?
No - they're flow telemetry exported by routers and switches, and they provide
layer-4 information.
It's possible with Cisco Flexible NetFlow and with
Another role for IPFIX/NetFlow in the context of DPI (on top of
PSAMP that was already mentioned by Roland) is to serve as a
transport mechanism to travel flow data along with their DPI
classification from probes to remote collectors, for persistent
storage, analysis, etc.
This model is
On May 7, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Paolo Lucente pl+l...@pmacct.net wrote:
This model is supported on the export side by Cisco with their NetFlow/NBAR
integration and on the collection side by some
collector.
As you'll note in reading that report, NBAR didn't seem to work very well for
them; I
Please note NBAR/NetFlow integration wanted to be an example of
using NetFlow/ IPFIX as a transport for DPI classification info
(where classification could be performed with any other in-line
technology than NBAR).
Whether NBAR works or does not as a classification technology is
out of scope for
Eygene Ryabinkin rea+na...@grid.kiae.ru writes:
If you hadn't seen the cases when same VRIDs in the same network were
used for both VRRP and CARP doesn't mean that they aren't occurring in
the real world. We use CARP and VRRP quite extensively and when we
first were hit by this issue, it
The issue Jared is needing a consensus in a community where that may be
impossible to achieve because of differing agendas - so does that mean
that the protocol should not exist because the IETF would not grant it
credence? Interesting.
Todd
On 5/6/2014 6:51 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On May 6,
Hi,
TGLASSEY wrote:
The issue Jared is needing a consensus in a community where that may be
impossible to achieve because of differing agendas - so does that mean
that the protocol should not exist because the IETF would not grant it
credence? Interesting.
There are just 256 numbers
It uses a Cavium Octeon processor which does have dedicated HW packet proce=
ssing. A moderate number of prefixes won't slow it down doing vanilla for=
warding, not sure about 2 million though... I believe they have recently o=
ptimized some of the FW stuff to take advantage of the HW as
Todd,
On May 7, 2014, at 4:44 PM, TGLASSEY tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
The issue Jared is needing a consensus in a community where that may be
impossible to achieve because of differing agendas - so does that mean that
the protocol should not exist because the IETF would not grant it
I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already,
especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it
comes to the 512K limit.
Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the
scaling, those old cards don¹t always like to come back.
On
Operationally speaking, AS1 should not be leaking routes from one upstream to
the other. Bad route policy. Also, AS3 should not accept routes from AS1 that
don't belong to it. Customer router filtering would prevent this.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG
On May 6, 2014, at 23:44 , Henning Brauer hb-na...@bsws.de wrote:
* Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net [2014-05-07 03:54]:
That the BSD community sometimes doesn't play well with others
Translation: not bowing for corporate US america.
Quite proudly so.
Uh, no, Translation: Self appointed
CARP uses a VRRP version number that has not been defined by VRRP,
hence there is no conflict there, either. The link from the quote
above has a quote from Henning.
Which means that in addition to squatting on the VRRP port, they are also
squatting on a version number that I'm betting the
Hello,
Before I go chasing this down does Telus traffic shape their DSL or Fibre
subscribers? Customer using 50Mbps fiber gets excellent speeds on
speedtest.net but looks like http and ssh (scp) transfers are capped at
1MBps (not 1Mbps) for non-popular hosts but uncapped for popular hosts.
Just
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Eygene Ryabinkin rea+na...@grid.kiae.ru writes:
If you hadn't seen the cases when same VRIDs in the same network were
used for both VRRP and CARP doesn't mean that they aren't occurring in
the real world. We use CARP and
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but
couldn't find any information.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Irwin, Kevin kevin.ir...@cinbell.com
Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
6500/7600
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol
and requested an IESG action and was refused. Do you believe that would
justify squatting on an already assigned number?
I'm going to go with yes, just to be
www.pssclabs.com
On May 7, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Shawn L sha...@up.net wrote:
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but
couldn't find any information.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Irwin, Kevin kevin.ir...@cinbell.com
Date: Wed, May 7,
ASR1k doesn't have fixed TCAM like the 6500 and has a little more wiggle
room, but it depends on the ESP you have installed. For example ESP 20
supports around 1,000,000 routes.
On 7 May 2014 15:09, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
CARP uses a VRRP version number that has not been defined by VRRP,
hence there is no conflict there, either. The link from the quote
above has a quote from Henning.
Which means that in addition to squatting on the VRRP port,
VRRP
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but couldn't
find any information.
Not really (according to Cisco) -
ESP10 - 1,000,000 IPv4 or 500,000 IPv6 routes
ESP20 - 4,000,000 IPv4 or 4,000,000 IPv6 routes
ESP40 - 4,000,000 IPv4 or 4,000,000 IPv6 routes
On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, Constantine A. Murenin said:
Also, would you please be so kind as to finally explain to us why
Google can squat on the https port with SPDY,
Because it doesn't squat on the port. It politely asks Do you speak SPDY,
or just https? and then listens to what
On 7 May 2014 17:56, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, Constantine A. Murenin said:
Also, would you please be so kind as to finally explain to us why
Google can squat on the https port with SPDY,
Because it doesn't squat on the port. It politely asks Do you
Except for that whole mac address thing, that crashes networks...
-Blake
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 May 2014 17:56, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, Constantine A. Murenin said:
Also, would you
On May 7, 2014, at 12:36 AM, Eygene Ryabinkin rea+na...@grid.kiae.ru wrote:
VRRP/HSRP comes from Cisco (well, VRRP is RFC'ed for some time, but
its origin is Cisco too),
I’m sorry, but this is 100% incorrect.
HSRP comes from Cisco, but Cisco originally decided to not release the protocol
This CARP thing is the best troll I've seen yet. Over a decade old and people
are still on about it.
-Laszlo
On May 8, 2014, at 1:15 AM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
Except for that whole mac address thing, that crashes networks...
-Blake
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:03 PM,
Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org writes:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol
and requested an IESG action and was refused. Do you believe that would
justify squatting on an already assigned
Notwithstanding any legitimate or illegitimate grievance associated with
the sordid history of carp / vrrp / the us patent system / BSD forks
and their respective participants.
It's time to take a long weekend.
thanks
joel
On 5/7/14, 8:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Matt Palmer
On May 7, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol
and requested an IESG action and was refused. Do you believe that would
justify squatting
Can someone from AWS contact me off-list? You have an entire availability
zone completely offline at us-east-1 that hasn't been detected, and it's
been down for 20 minutes.
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:33:45PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 7, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:57:01PM -0400, David Conrad wrote:
However, assume that the OpenBSD developers did document their protocol
and requested an IESG action
On 5/7/2014 9:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
The bar for an informational RFC is pretty darned low. I don't see
anything in the datagram nature of i'm alive, don't pull the trigger
yet that would preclude a UDP packet rather than naked IP. Hell,
since it's not supposed to leave the LAN, one could
On May 7, 2014, at 20:58 , Robert Drake rdr...@direcpath.com wrote:
On 5/7/2014 9:47 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
The bar for an informational RFC is pretty darned low. I don't see
anything in the datagram nature of i'm alive, don't pull the trigger
yet that would preclude a UDP packet rather
On 14-05-07 18:19, Landon wrote:
Before I go chasing this down does Telus traffic shape their DSL or Fibre
subscribers? Customer using 50Mbps fiber gets excellent speeds on
speedtest.net but looks like http and ssh (scp) transfers are capped at
1MBps (not 1Mbps) for non-popular hosts but
On Wednesday, May 07, 2014 07:28:46 PM Peter Rubenstein
wrote:
Operationally speaking, AS1 should not be leaking routes
from one upstream to the other. Bad route policy.
Also, AS3 should not accept routes from AS1 that don't
belong to it. Customer router filtering would prevent
this.
42 matches
Mail list logo
