Jimmy Hess writes:
> The kernel has its defaults, but distribution vendors such as
> Redhat/Ubuntu/Debian, are free to supply their own defaults through
> sysctl.conf or their NetworkManager packages or network configuration
> scripts...
>
> It's interesting to note they have so far chosen to
* Blake Hudson
> One thing not mentioned so far in this discussion is using PPPoE or some
> other tunnel/VPN technology for efficient IP utilization. The result
> could be zero wasted IP addresses without the need to resort to
> non-routable IP addresses in a customer's path (as the pdf suggested)
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 6/6/13, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Yes, the system default may be tuned for host/desktop usage
>> No, it doesn't default to reasonable desktop settings for ARP... it
>> defaults to a version of wrong that on a desktop with one NIC and one
>>
On 6/6/13, William Herrin wrote:
>> Yes, the system default may be tuned for host/desktop usage
> No, it doesn't default to reasonable desktop settings for ARP... it
> defaults to a version of wrong that on a desktop with one NIC and one
> IP doesn't happen to break anything. It'd be nice if it de
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> William Herrin writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>>> I won't argue against calling Linux "wrong". However, the linux way of
>>> dealing with ARP is well tuned for "host" and not "router" duty.
>>
>> I love Linux and
William Herrin writes:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> I won't argue against calling Linux "wrong". However, the linux way of
>> dealing with ARP is well tuned for "host" and not "router" duty.
>
> I love Linux and use it throughout my work but I can't tell you the
> numbe
Dan White wrote the following on 6/5/2013 9:44 AM:
On 06/05/13 00:34 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I read:
http://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/tues.general.Papandreou.conservation.24.pdf
I would like to point out RFC 3069. On most cisco equipment this is
done using static routes
On 6/5/13, rdrake wrote:
> On 2013-06-05 18:25, Ricky Beam wrote:
[snip]
>> (And I'm not too happy with the BS 32 interface limit for multicast
>> routing.)
>
> Actually, I'd love to see the pages of tweaks. Seems like it would be
> useful if I need to do this in the future :)
The great thing a
On 2013-06-05 18:25, Ricky Beam wrote:
That said, I do use a stripped debian box as an inter-vlan router.
You
don't want to see the pages of tweaks it's taken to stop it being a
broadcast storm generator. (and no, "arpd" is stupid hack.) It's a
beautiful thing to run "tcpdump ... broadcast" a
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> I won't argue against calling Linux "wrong". However, the linux way of
> dealing with ARP is well tuned for "host" and not "router" duty.
I love Linux and use it throughout my work but I can't tell you the
number of times its ARP behavior has b
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:06:49 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
... Since the Linux kernel already mishandles arp by
default, you're probably begging for unexpected behavior. Double down
on that if the customer controls the server image.
I won't argue against calling Linux "wrong". However, the lin
to do that with RFC3069 but if I've missed something please let me know.
Thanks,
ChrisP.
SoftLayer Technologies
chr...@softlayer.com
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 5:34 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: IP4 add
On 06/05/13 18:57 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, William Herrin wrote:
Nothing. The problem is that the arp source IP doesn't fall within the
interface netmask at the receiver. Some receivers ignore that... after
all, why do they care what the source IP is? They only care
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, William Herrin wrote:
Nothing. The problem is that the arp source IP doesn't fall within the
interface netmask at the receiver. Some receivers ignore that... after
all, why do they care what the source IP is? They only care about the
source MAC. Other receivers see a spoofed
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, William Herrin wrote:
>> Both the router and host have to support sending and accepting invalid ARP
>> requests. Since the Linux kernel already mishandles arp by default, you're
>> probably begging for unexpected beha
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, William Herrin wrote:
Both the router and host have to support sending and accepting invalid
ARP requests. Since the Linux kernel already mishandles arp by default,
you're probably begging for unexpected behavior. Double down on that if
the customer controls the server imag
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> http://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/tues.general.Papandreou.conservation.24.pdf
>
> So my question is basically: What am I missing?
Both the router and host have to support sending and accepting invalid
ARP requests. Since the Linux
On 06/05/13 00:34 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I read:
http://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/tues.general.Papandreou.conservation.24.pdf
I would like to point out RFC 3069. On most cisco equipment this is
done using static routes and "ip unnumbered".
So my question is basically: What
I read:
http://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/tues.general.Papandreou.conservation.24.pdf
I would like to point out RFC 3069. On most cisco equipment this is done
using static routes and "ip unnumbered".
So my question is basically: What am I missing? Why can't data center guys
not build
19 matches
Mail list logo
