Asr1002-f may have problem as it limited to 512k iirc
> On 08 мая 2014 г., at 2:45, Shawn L wrote:
>
> Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but
> couldn't find any information.
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Irwin, Kevin
> Date: Wed, May 7
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.
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 u
On May 7, 2014, at 20:58 , Robert Drake 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 than naked
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 coul
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:33:45PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On May 7, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Matt Palmer 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 ref
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 May 7, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Matt Palmer 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 on an already
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 writes:
>
>>
Matt Palmer 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 number?
>
> I'm g
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 wrote:
> Except for that whole mac address thing, that crashes networks...
>
> -Blake
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Constantine A. Mur
On May 7, 2014, at 12:36 AM, Eygene Ryabinkin 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
to the IETF. [Stup
Except for that whole mac address thing, that crashes networks...
-Blake
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> On 7 May 2014 17:56, wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, "Constantine A. Murenin" said:
>>
>>> Also, would you please be so kind as to finally expl
On 7 May 2014 17:56, 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 speak SPDY,
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 wh
> 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
ESP100-4,00
On 7 May 2014 15:09, Owen DeLong 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 protocol numb
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.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-1000-series-aggregation-services-routers/data_sheet_c78-450
www.pssclabs.com
> On May 7, 2014, at 6:47 PM, "Shawn L" wrote:
>
> Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but
> couldn't find any information.
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Irwin, Kevin
> Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM
> Subject:
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
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but
couldn't find any information.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Irwin, Kevin
Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
6500/7600 routers.
To: "nanog@nan
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> Eygene Ryabinkin 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
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
> 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
On May 6, 2014, at 23:44 , Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Jared Mauch [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 vigilantes with no regard for
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 [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.
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
Todd,
On May 7, 2014, at 4:44 PM, 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.
> 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
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 a
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, 2
Eygene Ryabinkin 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 was not that funny.
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 m
On May 7, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Paolo Lucente 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 haven't run acro
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 supported
On May 7, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Antoine Meillet 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 PSAMP exported over IPFIX
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 use
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.
Constantine,
Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:11:04PM -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad 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 not yet been all
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
On 5 April 2014 07:44, Larry Sheldon 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. If, however,
41 matches
Mail list logo
