On 11/08/2010 07:57 GMT+08:00, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>> It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let
>> me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens... >;-)
>>
>> And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network archit
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let
> me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens... >;-)
>
> And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network architecture:
> Layers are recursive."
Hi Scott,
Anyone who ha
On 11/7/2010 3:45 AM, Will Hargrave wrote:
> I used to run a large academic network; there was a vanishingly small
> incidence of edge ports supporting >1500byte MTU.
I run a moderately sized academic network, and know some details of our
"other" campus infrastructure (some larger, some smaller)
The latest version of WANGuard Flow exports flows to Excel and CSV.
You can download a trial from http://www.andrisoft.com
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Mike Gatti wrote:
>
> Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability data
> to export to CSV?
> Open Source would b
>
> I used to run a large academic network; there was a vanishingly small
> incidence of edge ports supporting >1500byte MTU. It's possibly even
> more tricky than the IX situation to support in an environment where
> you commonly have mixed devices at different speeds (most 100mbit
> devices will
On 7 Nov 2010, at 08:24, George Bonser wrote:
> It will happen on its own as more and more networks configure internally
> for larger frames and as more people migrate out of academia where 9000
> is the norm these days into industry.
I used to run a large academic network; there was a vanishing
>
> > I guess you didn't read the links earlier. It has nothing to do
with
> > stack tweaks. The moment you lose a single packet, you are toast.
> And
>
> TCP SACK.
Certainly helps but still has limitations. If you have too many packets
in flight, it can take too long to locate the SACKed pa
On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:29, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> There is no reason why we are still using 1500 byte MTUs at exchange points.
> Completely agree with you on that point. I'd love to see Equinix, AMSIX,
> LINX,
> DECIX, and the rest of the large exchange points put out statements indicating
> th
>
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, George Bonser wrote:
>
> > I guess you didn't read the links earlier. It has nothing to do
with
> > stack tweaks. The moment you lose a single packet, you are toast.
> And
>
> TCP SACK.
>
> I'm too tired to correct your other statements that lack basis in
> reality
> (
> >
> > Yes, I really don't understand that either. You would think that
the
> > investment in developing and deploying all that SONET infrastructure
> > has been paid back by now and they can lower the prices
dramatically.
> > One would think the vendors would be practically giving it away,
> > p
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, George Bonser wrote:
I guess you didn't read the links earlier. It has nothing to do with
stack tweaks. The moment you lose a single packet, you are toast. And
TCP SACK.
I'm too tired to correct your other statements that lack basis in reality
(or at least in my realit
>
> Oh, come on. Get real. The world TCP speed record is 10GE right now,
> it'll
> go higher as soon as there are higher interface speeds to be had.
You can buy 100G right now. I also believe there are some 40G
available, too.
Also, check this:
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13216
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 12:34:56AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
>
> Yes, I really don't understand that either. You would think that the
> investment in developing and deploying all that SONET infrastructure
> has been paid back by now and they can lower the prices dramatically.
> One would th
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 08:02:28AM +0100, Mans Nilsson wrote:
>
> The only reason to use (10)GE for transmission in WAN is the
> completely baroque price difference in interface pricing. With todays
> line rates, the components and complexity of a line card are pretty
> much equal between SDH a
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, George Bonser wrote:
True, but TCP is what we are stuck with for right now. Different
protocols could be developed to handle the small packets better.
We're not "stuck" with TCP, TCP is being developed all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_congestion_avoidance_al
So, question I don't want to forget between now and when I wake up (since its
late in my neck of the woods)...
Has any work been done with >1500 mtu on 802.11 links?
Is it feasable, or even possible?
I'm in the middle of rolling out a wisp in an area, and it dawned on me I never
even considere
>
> The only reason to use (10)GE for transmission in WAN is the completely
> baroque price difference in interface pricing. With todays line rates,
> the components and complexity of a line card are pretty much equal
> between SDH and GE. There is no reason to overcharge for the better
> interfac
>
> Also, if we're going to go for bigger MTUs, going from 1500 to 9000 is
> basically worthless, if we really want to do something, we should go
> for
> 64k or even bigger.
I agree but we need to work with what we have. Practically everything
currently appearing at a peering point will support
Subject: RE: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-) Date: Sat, Nov
06, 2010 at 08:38:33PM -0700 Quoting George Bonser (gbon...@seven.com):
> No wonder there is still so much transport
> using SONET. Using Ethernet reduces your effective performance over
> long distance paths.
The only
19 matches
Mail list logo
