On (2015-02-17 06:11 +0530), Glen Kent wrote:
> I think the hardware used was Broadcom. They have a few chipsets which do
> MD5 and (possibly) SHA in hardware for BFD -- which i have been told is
> pretty much useless when you start scaling.
Thanks. I'd be more interested to see performance for T
On (2015-02-16 20:33 -0500), Rob Seastrom wrote:
Hey,
> One might profitably ask why BFD wasn't designed to take advantage of
> high-TTL-shadowing, a la draft-gill-btsh.
RFC5881, section 5 in page 4
---
If BFD authentication is not in use on a session, all BFD Control
packets for the sessi
Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:47:04AM +0530, Glen Kent wrote:
> I have a server in Mountain View and i am doing a speedtest with a
> server in Oregon. I see that the upload/download BW that i am
> getting is low -- around 10.0Mbps and 5.0Mbps.
>
> gkent@ubuntu:~/ics$ speedtest-cli --server 4082
> Retrie
Try a traceroute to the site in Orefon and see where the bottle neck is?
Could also be that the speedtest server in OR is bogged down...
-Mike
On Feb 16, 2015 10:18 PM, "Glen Kent" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a server in Mountain View and i am doing a speedtest with a server
> in Oregon. I see that
Hi,
I have a server in Mountain View and i am doing a speedtest with a server
in Oregon. I see that the upload/download BW that i am getting is low --
around 10.0Mbps and 5.0Mbps.
gkent@ubuntu:~/ics$ speedtest-cli --server 4082
Retrieving speedtest.net configuration...
Retrieving speedtest.net se
Many moons ago, Mike O'Dell had a pithy observation about "can"
vs. "should" that is escaping me at this moment, which is a pity since
it almost certainly applies here.
-r
Dave Waters writes:
> Because BFD packets can get routed across multiple hops. Unlike EBGP where
> you connect to a
> pee
Dave Waters writes:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/2vxj9u/very_elegant_and_a_simple_way_to_secure_bfd/
>
> Authentication mechanisms defined for IGPs cannot be used to protect BFD
> since the rate at which packets are processed in BFD is very high.
>
> Dave
One might profitably a
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/agenda.html -> MPLS WG was heldin
Sovereign on 4th March @ 1300-1400
http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf89/ will you the audio recording for this
talk.
>From the MOM http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-mpls its
clear that there is no disagreement ab
Is there someone from the CenturyLink network ops group who would be willing to
contact me off list?
I have an issue with stability on a large number of customer circuits and it’s
on the verge of getting very ugly.
Thank you.
Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 08:55:17AM +0530, Glen Kent wrote:
> > I wonder if Trio, EZChip and friends could do SHA in NPU, my guess
> > is yes they could, but perhaps there is even more appropriate hash
> > for this use-case. I'm not entirely convinced doing hash for each
> > BFD packet is impractical.
On (2015-02-16 08:55 +0530), Glen Kent wrote:
Hey,
> You might want to take a look at:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-mpls-9.pdf
>
> Look at the slides 11 onwards.
>
> Doing HMAC calculation for each packet adversely affects the number of
> concurrent sessions that can be
11 matches
Mail list logo
