One could argue that much of this behavior was the result of most of
the internet preferring free, or nearly free, to paying for services
so all this jiggery-pokery evolved to try to make money to pay for
services and generate profits.
I suppose in theory one could argue they could have charged
On 9/9/23 22:29, Dave Cohen wrote:
At a previous $dayjob at a Tier 1, we would only support LAG for a
customer L2/3 service if the ports were on the same card. The response
we gave if customers pushed back was "we don't consider LAG a form of
circuit protection, so we're not going to
At a previous $dayjob at a Tier 1, we would only support LAG for a customer
L2/3 service if the ports were on the same card. The response we gave if
customers pushed back was "we don't consider LAG a form of circuit
protection, so we're not going to consider physical resiliency in the
design",
On 9/9/23 20:44, Randy Bush wrote:
i am going to be foolish and comment, as i have not seen this raised
if i am running a lag, i can not resist adding a bit of resilience by
having it spread across line cards.
surprise! line cards from vendor do not have uniform hashing
or rotating
>
> Are you saying the very org that brings us together, is not allowed to
> spur discussion based on newsletter content and cannot provide us with
> updates and/or reminders about various things?
>
I don't believe anyone is making that argument at all.
The published usage guidelines are what
i am going to be foolish and comment, as i have not seen this raised
if i am running a lag, i can not resist adding a bit of resilience by
having it spread across line cards.
surprise! line cards from vendor do not have uniform hashing
or rotating algorithms.
randy
Mark Tinka writes:
> Oh? What is it then, if it's not spraying successive packets across
> member links?
It sprays the packets more or less randomly across links, and each link
then does individual buffering. It introduces an unnecessary random
delay to each packet, when it could just place
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 12:30 Tom Beecher wrote:
> What network does Nanog-news operate?
>>
>> Marketing email doesn’t belong on an operational list. Even if its
>> NANOG marketing itself. (Ack Kentik non involvement).
>>
>
> This is the right comment.
>
> The NANOG Mailing List Usage
Martin and Tom,
How is it a private marketing initiative exactly if the links go to stories on
NANOG's website? Are you saying the very org that brings us together, is not
allowed to spur discussion based on newsletter content and cannot provide us
with updates and/or reminders about various
>
> What network does Nanog-news operate?
>
> Marketing email doesn’t belong on an operational list. Even if its NANOG
> marketing itself. (Ack Kentik non involvement).
>
This is the right comment.
The NANOG Mailing List Usage Guidelines (
https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ )
10 matches
Mail list logo
