On 10/23/05, Dimitar Vasilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess that's why we let cisco handle bgp (and ntp, > > by the way). > Thanks, I will have it in mind next time if I'm to setup these two services. > The bottleneck is insufficient memory for BGP. In a week or so there > will be another chip. > BTW, the network admins of the institution, where the project machine > I coadmin is collocated, do not like T*tsco, because it is > exploitable and breaks easily under the volume of traffic passing > through there.I agree with them to some extend. > As the project is fully voluntary and it is backed by the admins and > FreeBSD users, it is normal to have such a setup. I'm now used to the > signs of dying ntpd and can react in acceptable time. > Happy weekend! > > -- > Димитър Василев > Dimitar Vassilev > > GnuPG key ID: 0x4B8DB525 > Keyserver: pgp.mit.edu > Key fingerprint: D88A 3B92 DED5 917E 341E D62F 8C51 5FC4 4B8D B525 >
Yeah, Cisco sucks - in that I totally agree with you. Haven't tried bgp on FreeBSD, but I'm sure the ntpd problem can be alleviated by daily something like "/etc/rc.d/ntpd stop && /etc/rc.d/ntpdate start && /etc/rc.d/ntpd start", can't it.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"