Sorry, Tom. I’m not taking the bait. -mel via cell
On Aug 4, 2025, at 7:02 AM, Tom Beecher <[email protected]> wrote: 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> >> 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 >>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 at 21:02, Tom Beecher via NANOG >>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> >>> 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/[email protected]/message/7KXUNRGFI5OEVSDEDU2OL5VMY5NBGQCV/ >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/CF3QHVTISL6LDFTOWG4E3KK54QEDHUIY/ >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/OJ7ICXLSPFND32X2XS2U7XIWA6DALSIF/ > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/E4CF2TFV35VSJVFEZZANEWOAJFUUNDL4/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/RU6WF77QOECXABP6IDCMVNLAH67X4WNW/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3NCOGL6SHARKHBT2TJRK4W7ZOP2BO2BW/
