Mel- You have made multiple technical assertions in this thread that are demonstrably false. Quoting your earlier messages :
1. Also, non-management interfaces do packet processing in silicon at the ASIC level and don’t have the capacity to do anything more than statistical sampling of packets that require CPU-level processing to retrieve counters and generate SNMP responses. 62 % is as good a sampling rate as any other. 2. Cisco is likely to say that the control plane is only fully supported on the management port. 3. In-band SNMP to data forwarding interfaces violates that separation. You have attempted to frame these comments as : honest and sincere attempts by other members to help identify the possible > problem. While your attempts to help may have been honest and sincere attempts to help the OP, they actually achieved the opposite effect. Your incorrect technical assertions , if anything, only hindered the OP's attempt to understand and identify their issue. Comment #1 is especially egregious ; you're telling Drew that his observations are *normal*. Saku made 2 comments that addressed these falsehoods : It might be easier to contribute, if there is familiarity to the subject > matter. some community member piled on with what can only be described as a bizarre drivel. The first was a polite way of calling out the technical inaccuracies. The second was a more forceful way of stating "what you said was wrong". Most people, when they are corrected on a factual point, tend to reply with "Oh hey, I got that wrong, thanks for setting me straight" and move on. You seem to have just ignored it. There is a massive difference between the following statements : 1. You are an idiot. [ Attacking the person ] 2. What you said was idiotic. [ Attacking the statements ] It seems to be that you may be struggling in identifying that difference, and taking *any* criticism as a personal attack. Nobody is bullying you, or anybody else, in this conversation. On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 9:42 AM Mel Beckman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: > Thanks. I knew we were not so out to lunch! If you don’t push back on > bullies, they take over the community. It crops up on nanog periodically. :( > > -mel via cell > > > On Aug 4, 2025, at 5:54 AM, Joe Loiacono via NANOG < > nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Mel, for what it's worth, I could not figure out what they were > referring to by Saku's comments. I saw no justification for their > complaint. A bit out of character for Saku, also, > > > > Joe > > > >> On 8/2/2025 7:23 PM, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote: > >> I’ll just let the incivility of you both stand. > >> > >> -mel > >> > >> On Aug 2, 2025, at 3:52 PM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Mel- > >> > >> Saku did not call *you* any names. He called your *incorrect > statements* in this thread 'bizzard drivel'. Which he is absolutely correct > about. While your intentions may certainly have been to help, your > statements here have been frankly dead wrong and did not accomplish that. > >> > >> Probably just want to take the L here. > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 5:34 PM Mel Beckman via NANOG < > nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote: > >> Saku, > >> > >> What is actually appalling is that a member of NANOG calls “bizarre > drivel” the honest and sincere attempts by other members to help identify > the possible problem. There’s no cause to be uncivil, people can disagree > without stooping to name-calling. > >> > >> -mel > >> > >>>> On Aug 2, 2025, at 11:46 AM, Saku Ytti via NANOG < > nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 at 21:02, Tom Beecher via NANOG > >>> <nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I don't have in depth knowledge of Cisco's SNMP implementations, or > even > >>>> the ASR platform specifically, but if Cisco TAC is telling you this is > >>>> 'normal', they are completely full of shit, and you should click any > and > >>>> every 'escalate' button you can find. > >>>> > >>>> This almost sounds like a default control plane DDOS policer / LPTS , > >>>> something like that. > >>> There are various complicated reasons for this, LPTS policer is > >>> unlikely culprit, but possible. Bug search will show various DDTS with > >>> poor SNMP performance outcome, most of them are unrelated to LPTS. > >>> > >>> But absolutely correct, the right solution is to escalate. In common > >>> case this would be SE from your account team, who would fight for you > >>> internally. > >>> > >>> > >>> It is appalling that OP came to nanog after correctly suspecting TAC > >>> is gaslighting them, some community member piled on with what can only > >>> be described as a bizarre drivel. > >>> -- > >>> ++ytti > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NANOG mailing list > >>> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/7KXUNRGFI5OEVSDEDU2OL5VMY5NBGQCV/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NANOG mailing list > >> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/CF3QHVTISL6LDFTOWG4E3KK54QEDHUIY/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NANOG mailing list > >> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/OJ7ICXLSPFND32X2XS2U7XIWA6DALSIF/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/E4CF2TFV35VSJVFEZZANEWOAJFUUNDL4/ > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/RU6WF77QOECXABP6IDCMVNLAH67X4WNW/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/O32JSSONAPQCALBIECWM5GA4VEZZPUTG/
