Very interesting story great work Ronald
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Ronald F. Guilmette
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 2:27 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: The Curious Case of 143.95.0.0/16
Fair Warning: Those of you not enamored of my long-winded exposés of
> From: Saku Ytti
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:38 PM
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:10, wrote:
>
> > Not true.
> > This is the case only in fixed pipelines.
>
> Also true in say MX Trio and ASR9k EZchip, I can't immediately think of
> platform where ACL or QoS costs pps. ASR9k is TCAM
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:10, wrote:
> Not true.
> This is the case only in fixed pipelines.
Also true in say MX Trio and ASR9k EZchip, I can't immediately think
of platform where ACL or QoS costs pps. ASR9k is TCAM for ACL so O(1)
and MX Trio is just fast enough to not affect pps performance.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
What about handling LAG on 1Gb/sec links? That is a major showstopper if
indeed it is missing:
It works, but only about as well as anything else to do with 1G interfaces
works on the MX204, and only then when you're running at least 18.1R3...
> From: Saku Ytti
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 9:55 AM
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 10:27, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
>
> > 64B traffic simply doesn’t happen apart from DDoS scenarios, so why
> > bother at all? Customers anyway want to use dedicated
>
>
> And like you said, QoS and filters
Did we all forget the size of the IPv6 table is nearing a milestone number
in the DFZ? ;)
> It is a 3-day weekend in the US. A good time to pause for a few minutes
and consider what all of us accomplished together.
> Pat yourselves on the back, raise a glass or whatever your personal
traditions
Adam,
> On 2 Sep 2019, at 19:42, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
> You nailed it,
> Actually very few line-cards or fabric-less boxes with (run to completion
> vendor chips) out there do line-rate at 64B packets nowadays.
> -with the advent of 100G the "line-rate at 64B" is pretty much
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 10:27, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> 64B traffic simply doesn’t happen apart from DDoS scenarios, so
> why bother at all? Customers anyway want to use dedicated
ACK. And as such, you're not going to get DDoS on all ports at the
same time. So you just need to have enough ports
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 10:35:39 +
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> If you can't accept the following principle of the End to End
> argument:
I think it is better to stick with what the paper refers to them e2e as,
an argument. The e2e paper is by far one of the closest things we
have to network canon
I have a need for a BGP enabled connection in the River North section of
Chicago. We have a small number of IP blocks that we want to use. Currently, we
have some equipment at 350 E. Cermak (Steadfast Networks) and are looking at
downsizing and bringing stuff
in-house. Our bandwidth
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 12:44 PM ADNS NetBSD List Subscriber
wrote:
>
> Also, we’d like to ditch our 3640 router in favor of a smaller “desktop”
> size router, but none of them seem to do BGP (not surprising). Any
> recommendations on hardware would be welcome as well
>
I can think of lots of
Might be worth to consider running a software router on that scale with perhaps
some cheap quad-port GbE PCIe NICs. BIRD would be the BGP daemon to go, or
FRRouting if you want an integrated shell. Hardware routers for 100 Mbit egress
seem a bit overpowered, however, as scaleable you want to
I’ve had BGP from comcast business in River North before, not sure what their
minimum bandwidth is for that. Tunnels may be simplest at that bandwidth level.
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Florian Brandstetter via NANOG
> wrote:
>
> Might be worth to consider running a software router on that
On 9/3/2019 12:19 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
But even the higher-end Ubiquiti EdgeRouter series products can handle
full tables if you understand and accept their limitations in doing so
if budget is a huge concern but you still need to take full tables.
As long as you stick with the 1.10.10
John Kristoff wrote:
If you can't accept the following principle of the End to End
argument:
I think it is better to stick with what the paper refers to them e2e as,
an argument. The e2e paper is by far one of the closest things we
have to network canon and its reasoning is exceptionally
I will note that Comcast will do BGP on their enterprise fiber circuits.
Comcast DIA (which they call EDI) comes in increments of 1M up to 10M, then
10M up to 100M, etc. So you could get 10M or 80M (not sure if "10MB/Sec"
means 10Mbps or 80MBps) and do BGP over that, if it's available. RCN is
On 9/3/2019 1:54 PM, Florian Brandstetter wrote:
I don't see full tables happening from a memory perspective on the
EdgeRouter Lite, you would want to look at something with at least 2 GiB
of memory to keep the whole system running smoothly, and when using
Quagga and Zebra, that's still aimed
17 matches
Mail list logo
