Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
Joe Rhett writes on 10/15/2003 3:36 PM: In mutt, it'd be "edit and resend as new" - esc e Add something like: bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :wq In mutt you can simply 'bounce' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the same effect and less keystrokes. But the guy said he didn't want previous smtp headers to be preserved. "b" would preserve the previous headers in the email. -- srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 03:29:01PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Mikael Abrahamsson writes on 10/15/2003 10:42 AM: > > > > >to the headers, that's it. Also, it just continues to add to the > >SMTP-headers of the email (doesnt start fresh with what mail servers has > >been passed), so I am not sure that theory holds water that this was an > >accident. > > > > In mutt, it'd be "edit and resend as new" - > > esc e > Add something like: bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > :wq In mutt you can simply 'bounce' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the same effect and less keystrokes. -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
Mikael Abrahamsson writes on 10/15/2003 10:42 AM: to the headers, that's it. Also, it just continues to add to the SMTP-headers of the email (doesnt start fresh with what mail servers has been passed), so I am not sure that theory holds water that this was an accident. In mutt, it'd be "edit and resend as new" - esc e Add something like: bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :wq -- srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
[OT] RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
## On 2003-10-14 21:51 -0700 Michel Py typed: MP> MP> > Vivien M. wrote: MP> > it does look like Randy hit the bounce option in pine MP> MP> A bounce that does not say "undeliverable"? MP> That would be manual bounce(that is resend with the same headers/body) and _not_ an MTA bounce -- Rafi
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote: > > > Vivien M. wrote: > > it does look like Randy hit the bounce option in pine > > A bounce that does not say "undeliverable"? I tried this, in Pine it adds: Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:06:06 +0200 (CEST) Resent-From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Resent-Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond to the headers, that's it. Also, it just continues to add to the SMTP-headers of the email (doesnt start fresh with what mail servers has been passed), so I am not sure that theory holds water that this was an accident. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
> Vivien M. wrote: > it does look like Randy hit the bounce option in pine A bounce that does not say "undeliverable"? Michel.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
Bradley Dunn wrote: [...] > Adding more specifics of a /8, /16, or /24 prefix seems to > have a disproportionate impact; my guess is it has something to do with > the data structure used to store the prefixes. (If they use a 256-way > mtrie like they do for CEF, more specifics of a /8, /16, or /24 would > require creation of an additional internal node.) Good point. I'd made the simple assumption that scanner spikes were due to table churn, as when redistributing connected and/or static routes to unstable interfaces. It happens that most such will be... unnaturally specific. [...] Peter E. Fry
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
... And seeing as that all most switches are is a glorified multiple port bridge, feel free to go to your 7500 and make it a switch by placing "bridge-group 1" on every port, and if you want to get really crazy and make it a L3 switch, go all out and put in a "bridge 1 route ip". :-) -Original Message- From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:02 PM To: Richard A Steenbergen; Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond > Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > So a 7500 with a fast cache is a L3 switch? :) Of course. It does wire-speed switching with one and Possibly more CX-EIP6 if you enable dCEF :-) Michel.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
>> and I would be happy to see the list owner come >> down hard on the perp. Banishment? >You should make sure you know who the perp is before making such >pronouncements (or maybe it doesn't matter). Not really. It's the list owner who should know who the perp is before taking action. In any case, it's quite easy to figure out who dragged the dispute onto the list by checking the incoming messages. In this case one person sent a private email and the perp sent a profane reply copied to the list. Clearcut case.
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > So a 7500 with a fast cache is a L3 switch? :) Of course. It does wire-speed switching with one and Possibly more CX-EIP6 if you enable dCEF :-) Michel.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
Steve Francis wrote: BGP Scanner taking up close to 100% of CPU on a box periodically. GSR doesn't seem to do it, but a buncha other cisco boxes do. Its more irritating than anything else, especially when customers complain that when they traceroute they see ~200ms latency to the router... Doesn't happen here with MSFC2/SupII. Maybe just MSFC1's that are subject to that. Every IOS-based device running BGP will have a BGP Scanner process that wakes up once a minute and walks the BGP RIB checking that the next hops are still valid. Whether it makes a noticeable impact on CPU utilization depends on the platform and the size and distribution of the BGP table. Obviously the more powerful the CPU the less the impact. In my experience the distribution of the BGP table can also make a big difference. Adding more specifics of a /8, /16, or /24 prefix seems to have a disproportionate impact; my guess is it has something to do with the data structure used to store the prefixes. (If they use a 256-way mtrie like they do for CEF, more specifics of a /8, /16, or /24 would require creation of an additional internal node.) If you have a recent IOS that supports the 'show proc cpu history' command, often the BGP Scanner spikes are quite obvious. On platforms that do distributed forwarding, the spikes really only affect traffic to/from the router, so additional latency will show up in traceroutes or pings but forwarded traffic will not be affected. On platforms that do centralized forwarding BGP Scanner can impact forwarded traffic. Bradley
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
Not to mention that apparently if you turn off route-caching completely, you will make a router out of any "l3 switch" (since all packet forwarding will equally slow) -alex On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Jason LeBlanc wrote: > > 75xx/GSR, dCEF? 75xx/GSR are L3 switches then. ;) Not to add > flame-bait, but.. > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/switch_c/xcprt2/xcdcef.htm > > Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > >On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > >>I don't understand how you can differentiate between a router and an L3 > >>switch. In my view "L3 switch" is a marketing term. All high end boxes > >>do hardware based IP forwarding, whether their ancestry is from the L2 > >>or the L3 side. > >> > >> > > > >To me something that uses hardware assist, setup by the cpu per > >destination, is an L3 Switch. Something that does equal route lookups per > >packet all the time is a router. > > > > > > >
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
> Robert Boyle wrote: > "From now on, we should make this a primary distinction between > switch and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is > a router, if horizontal, it is a switch, unless there are two > or more vertical slots within any horizontal slot plane, then > it is, in fact, a router." > How does that sound? That would make a great April 1 RFC! Michel.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Steve Francis wrote: > Doesn't happen here with MSFC2/SupII. > > Maybe just MSFC1's that are subject to that. That is possible, but I didn't see it on a 7500 till I started taking more than 1 full table.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
bgp scanner cpu usage == number of neighbors * number of routes in table lots of neighbors would cause this, for longer periods. If running SUP1A/MSFC this could be worse than with MSFC2 (slightly more CPU power), and much worse than SUP2 I'm guessing. Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you could expand on the BGP scanner problems - we haven't seen them all the time we've been running 6500 native with full routes (about 1.5 years now). BGP Scanner taking up close to 100% of CPU on a box periodically. GSR doesn't seem to do it, but a buncha other cisco boxes do. Its more irritating than anything else, especially when customers complain that when they traceroute they see ~200ms latency to the router...
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:15:59PM -0700, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Maybe you could expand on the BGP scanner problems - we haven't seen > > them all the time we've been running 6500 native with full routes (about > > 1.5 years now). > > BGP Scanner taking up close to 100% of CPU on a box periodically. > GSR doesn't seem to do it, but a buncha other cisco boxes do. > Its more irritating than anything else, especially when customers complain > that when they traceroute they see ~200ms latency to the router... On the GSR, dCEF is turned on by default, and the GRP does the bgp processing while the linecards continue to forward packets without interruption (well at least until an update comes in and dCEF starts pointing the packets out the wrong interface at any rate). :P -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:10:32PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I don't understand how you can differentiate between a router and an L3 > > switch. In my view "L3 switch" is a marketing term. All high end boxes > > do hardware based IP forwarding, whether their ancestry is from the L2 > > or the L3 side. > > To me something that uses hardware assist, setup by the cpu per > destination, is an L3 Switch. Something that does equal route lookups per > packet all the time is a router. So a 7500 with a fast cache is a L3 switch? :) The closest definition you'll get to an L3 switch is a box which does primarily or only Ethernet, can easily become an L2 ethernet switch again with different software, and uses software hacks on a normal ethernet CAM to do forwarding lookups. Other than that, it's just generalizations and stereotypes. Oh and of course, marketing. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you could expand on the BGP scanner problems - we haven't seen them all the time we've been running 6500 native with full routes (about 1.5 years now). BGP Scanner taking up close to 100% of CPU on a box periodically. GSR doesn't seem to do it, but a buncha other cisco boxes do. Its more irritating than anything else, especially when customers complain that when they traceroute they see ~200ms latency to the router... Doesn't happen here with MSFC2/SupII. Maybe just MSFC1's that are subject to that.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
75xx/GSR, dCEF? 75xx/GSR are L3 switches then. ;) Not to add flame-bait, but.. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/switch_c/xcprt2/xcdcef.htm Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand how you can differentiate between a router and an L3 switch. In my view "L3 switch" is a marketing term. All high end boxes do hardware based IP forwarding, whether their ancestry is from the L2 or the L3 side. To me something that uses hardware assist, setup by the cpu per destination, is an L3 Switch. Something that does equal route lookups per packet all the time is a router.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Boyle wrote: | | At 04:43 PM 10/13/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | |> > 7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal. |> |> Yep, I think from now on, we should make this a primary distinction |> between switch and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is a |> router, if horizontal, it is a switch. |> |> Works well for 7500/12000/5x00/6500. ;) | | | A small problem... all of my 7200s have horizontal line cards as do the | Juniper M5/7/10/20. The smaller 7100, 3700, 3600, 2600 also have | horizontal line cards too. So... here is a correction. | | "From now on, we should make this a primary distinction between switch | and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is a router, if | horizontal, it is a switch, unless there are two or more vertical slots | within any horizontal slot plane, then it is, in fact, a router." | | How does that sound? Like the start of some new RFC :-) = bep -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32) iD8DBQE/ixZ9E1XcgMgrtyYRAvFMAJ9UQJtGWCn+U3rtPRPyhJLVohevGwCgxtc5 EgQ3xgSwH4u/R7RBEQZ4sk0= =Nklr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Maybe you could expand on the BGP scanner problems - we haven't seen > them all the time we've been running 6500 native with full routes (about > 1.5 years now). BGP Scanner taking up close to 100% of CPU on a box periodically. GSR doesn't seem to do it, but a buncha other cisco boxes do. Its more irritating than anything else, especially when customers complain that when they traceroute they see ~200ms latency to the router...
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote: > > Does the 7600 have the same BGP Scanner problem as the 6509 does? > > I've still yet to see anything that suggests that the difference between > the 7600 and the 6500 is more than just a paint job and a marketting job. Whee! Even more of a reason not to buy one for routing :)
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't understand how you can differentiate between a router and an L3 > switch. In my view "L3 switch" is a marketing term. All high end boxes > do hardware based IP forwarding, whether their ancestry is from the L2 > or the L3 side. To me something that uses hardware assist, setup by the cpu per destination, is an L3 Switch. Something that does equal route lookups per packet all the time is a router. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
> A small problem... all of my 7200s have horizontal line cards as do the > Juniper M5/7/10/20. The smaller 7100, 3700, 3600, 2600 also have > horizontal line cards too. So... here is a correction. > > "From now on, we should make this a primary distinction between switch > and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is a router, if > horizontal, it is a switch, unless there are two or more vertical slots > within any horizontal slot plane, then it is, in fact, a router." Excellent point, that also fixes the "problem" for riverstone 8x00 ;) -alex
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
> > Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between > > these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router > > with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good > > routing capabilities. > > Does the 7600 have the same BGP Scanner problem as the 6509 does? 7600 runs the same code as 6500 with native IOS. It *is* the same box, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Maybe you could expand on the BGP scanner problems - we haven't seen them all the time we've been running 6500 native with full routes (about 1.5 years now). Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote: >>> I've still yet to see anything that suggests that the difference >>> between the 7600 and the 6500 is more than just a paint job and a >>> marketting job. > On Monday, October 13, 2003 10:37 PM, Robert A. Hayden > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal. * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nipper, Arnold) [Mon 13 Oct 2003, 22:53 CEST]: > 6500-NEBS has also vertical boards ... Well, guess what? That's because the 7600 is a 6509-NEB chassis. Take a 6509, fill it with the most expensive versions of DFC, MSFC, Supervisor, switch fabric cards etc., fill it all up with memory, and the only difference with an OSR-7609 is the faceplace. Compare the pictures at http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/6000hw/inst_aug/01over.htm#69700 and http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/core/cis7600/hardware/osrouter/osr_over.htm#69700 or for the plain 7609 http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/core/cis7600/hardware/cis_76xx/osr_over.htm#1068171 (the text leading up to this image leads to Figure 1-3, which is incorrect, btw) So, yes, Simon was very much correct - differences between 65xx and 76xx (for equal values of xx) are initial configuration and the paint job. -- Niels.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
At 04:43 PM 10/13/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal. Yep, I think from now on, we should make this a primary distinction between switch and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is a router, if horizontal, it is a switch. Works well for 7500/12000/5x00/6500. ;) A small problem... all of my 7200s have horizontal line cards as do the Juniper M5/7/10/20. The smaller 7100, 3700, 3600, 2600 also have horizontal line cards too. So... here is a correction. "From now on, we should make this a primary distinction between switch and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is a router, if horizontal, it is a switch, unless there are two or more vertical slots within any horizontal slot plane, then it is, in fact, a router." How does that sound? -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
6500-NEBS has also vertical boards ... Arnold On Monday, October 13, 2003 10:37 PM, Robert A. Hayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal. > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote: > >> >> On Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:19:21PM -0700, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote: Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good routing capabilities. >>> >>> Does the 7600 have the same BGP Scanner problem as the 6509 does? >> >> I've still yet to see anything that suggests that the difference between >> the 7600 and the 6500 is more than just a paint job and a marketting job. >> >> Simon
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
> 7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal. Yep, I think from now on, we should make this a primary distinction between switch and a router: If a device has vertical line cards, it is a router, if horizontal, it is a switch. Works well for 7500/12000/5x00/6500. ;) -alex
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
7600 is also vertical boards whereas the 6500 is horizontal. On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote: > > On Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:19:21PM -0700, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote: > > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote: > > > Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between > > > these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router > > > with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good > > > routing capabilities. > > > > Does the 7600 have the same BGP Scanner problem as the 6509 does? > > I've still yet to see anything that suggests that the difference between > the 7600 and the 6500 is more than just a paint job and a marketting job. > > Simon >
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:19:21PM -0700, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote: > > Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between > > these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router > > with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good > > routing capabilities. > > Does the 7600 have the same BGP Scanner problem as the 6509 does? I've still yet to see anything that suggests that the difference between the 7600 and the 6500 is more than just a paint job and a marketting job. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (x37720) | Si fractum Technology Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (x37701) | non sit, noli BBC Internet Operations | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| id reficere BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB. UK
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote: > Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between > these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router > with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good > routing capabilities. Does the 7600 have the same BGP Scanner problem as the 6509 does?
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy > Sent: October 13, 2003 1:21 PM > To: Shazad - eServers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond > > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:52:59PM +0100, Shazad - eServers wrote: > > > > If you are so smart, GO and CHECK the HEADERS of that POST. > Was it me? > > NO IT WASENT. > > No offense, but: [Snip] > Looks like the exact same path to me. You got the wrong post, I think... Here are the headers I'm seeing: Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [198.108.1.26]) by manganese.bos.dyndns.org (8.12.8p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9DFQclx048945; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:26:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 13A6191327; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:22:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4F8D7912A4; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:17:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957A9912D2 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 83AD05DDA1; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EAB5DD98 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=roam.psg.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1A94Q6-0007IZ-Ov for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:15:39 + Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=roam.psg.com) by roam.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1A94Q5-000Bct-K6 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:15:37 +0200 Organization: eServers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcORlxEhs697B4/kSySyoICO+plTjQABXZYg In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) From: "Shazad - eServers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Randy Bush'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:25 +0100 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Loop: nanog X-Spam-Status: -3.3 () BAYES_10,FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,IN_REP_TO,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT ,X_LOOP X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 As much as I hate to say it (and I'll probably regret getting into this discussion), it does look like Randy hit the bounce option in pine or whatever and sent Shazad's private reply straight to NANOG. Vivien -- Vivien M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
[substitutions for offensive terms are mine] > > >You know what, go and [run windows] yourself you little [manager].. > > >Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. > > >Best Regards, > >Shazad > >eServers - driving the "e" into your business. > > This is the second time recently that a member of > this list has dragged their own personal disputes > onto the list. I don't particularly like this > and I would be happy to see the list owner come > down hard on the perp. Banishment? How about invoking temporary suspension clauses in cases like this? One day cooling off period for first offense, one week for the second, one month for the third? I think immediate banishment is a bit too harsh; but suspending posting privileges for 24 hours, along with a note to the list noting that the person is on suspension so people don't take the person's silence as a sign of agreement on topics of discussion. I understand a desire to not make public a person's chastisement; but on the other hand, if you don't know that a person has a gag order on them, it may well seem that they are tacitly supporting a position through their silence, when that is indeed not the case. > This seems to be a lot worse than the usual > annoying off-topic threads. It was entertaining for the first round; after that, it quickly became tiresome. Matt
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
> > On the other hand, 6500s can do both L2 and L3 rather well, including > > BGP. > > Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between > these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router > with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good > routing capabilities. Until the Sup720, it was simple: 6500 with Sup2/MSFC2/PFC2 and at least one OSM equals 7600. The difference is mostly a marketing one. I don't understand how you can differentiate between a router and an L3 switch. In my view "L3 switch" is a marketing term. All high end boxes do hardware based IP forwarding, whether their ancestry is from the L2 or the L3 side. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Yes, GSRs are better at routing but they lack L2 capability and it's a >> very expensive (and lousy unless you have Engine3 cards) GE plattform. > Steinar Haug > On the other hand, 6500s can do both L2 and L3 rather well, including > BGP. Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good routing capabilities. Michel.
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
> Shazad wrote: > I did it accidentally BUT quoted him, he literally bounced my > message as If I had sent it to NANOG. Check your headers and > you will find out, I never sent that message to NANOG. Indeed. Although you did screw up by quoting his first private message, it does appear to me like it was an honest mistake given the contents. Thereafter, everyone can see the way Randy Bush operates: no balls to stand behind his comments, the first to use bad words and then the deception on the mailing list. Welcome to the club. Michel.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
> Yes, GSRs are better at routing but they lack L2 capability and it's a > very expensive (and lousy unless you have Engine3 cards) GE plattform. On the other hand, 6500s can do both L2 and L3 rather well, including BGP. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
BTW: There are Foundry and Extreme related mailing lists in the same location as a few other vendor lists. http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo for all puck lists, including other router/switch vendors. enjoy, - jared On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 08:01:50PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > Just don't use extremes as routers, and you will be much, much happier. It > > _might_ work in the dumbest, unicast-only setups, but I have a lot of > > doubts about anything more complex than that. > > I think you're being too pessimistic. For instance, some of the largest > LAN parties had Extreme boxen as core equipment (Dreamhack for instance, > 4500 computers) and their ISP (where I work) had Extreme routers for a > larger part of its national core/distribution network. > > We run BGP as well. It works for what we need it for. We use network > statements and talk BGP with customers. > > With EW7.1.0 they solved most of our issues, we're now going ISIS as well. > > As with all equipment, try everything you want to do and see if it does it > well. If you're doing a large network buildout you might save a LOT of > money buy bying intermediate stuff (like Extreme) instead of coing the > hard-core way (Juniper/GSR). > > Yes, GSRs are better at routing but they lack L2 capability and it's a > very expensive (and lousy unless you have Engine3 cards) GE plattform. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: > Just don't use extremes as routers, and you will be much, much happier. It > _might_ work in the dumbest, unicast-only setups, but I have a lot of > doubts about anything more complex than that. I think you're being too pessimistic. For instance, some of the largest LAN parties had Extreme boxen as core equipment (Dreamhack for instance, 4500 computers) and their ISP (where I work) had Extreme routers for a larger part of its national core/distribution network. We run BGP as well. It works for what we need it for. We use network statements and talk BGP with customers. With EW7.1.0 they solved most of our issues, we're now going ISIS as well. As with all equipment, try everything you want to do and see if it does it well. If you're doing a large network buildout you might save a LOT of money buy bying intermediate stuff (like Extreme) instead of coing the hard-core way (Juniper/GSR). Yes, GSRs are better at routing but they lack L2 capability and it's a very expensive (and lousy unless you have Engine3 cards) GE plattform. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:52:59PM +0100, Shazad - eServers wrote: > > If you are so smart, GO and CHECK the HEADERS of that POST. Was it me? NO IT > WASENT. No offense, but: Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2B7F25DE96; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from velocity.eservers.biz (velocity.eservers.biz [209.51.159.226]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 0EB485DE89 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:59:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 32650 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2003 14:21:29 - Received: from london.eservers.biz (HELO eserverspbnb) (62.3.241.102) by velocity.eservers.biz with SMTP; 13 Oct 2003 14:21:29 - Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Shazad - eServers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Fisher, Shawn'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:58:55 +0100 Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5CE615DE0F; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from velocity.eservers.biz (velocity.eservers.biz [209.51.159.226]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id CBA335DE1D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 32752 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2003 14:26:34 - Received: from london.eservers.biz (HELO eserverspbnb) (62.3.241.102) by velocity.eservers.biz with SMTP; 13 Oct 2003 14:26:34 - Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Shazad - eServers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Randy Bush'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:04:00 +0100 Looks like the exact same path to me. -- Matthew S. HallacyFUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Mans Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond Date: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 12:19:20PM -0400 > Quoting Haesu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > Don't mean to get off-topic... but speaking the Extremes.. > > Has anyone here had luck with doing some BGP stuff with Sumit 48i? > > Not beyond lab setups, but yes, they speak BGP. We are about to > move KTHNOC to a new datacenter shortly, at which we will speak BGP > to the world using an Extreme switch. I'd strongly recommend keeping away from "BGP" Extremes "speak". Especially if you want to it to work. We've seen a lot of problems, like failures to advertise default routes, getting MP-BGP to work at all, etc. I think the MP-BGP has been unsolved for, what, at least a year now. Just don't use extremes as routers, and you will be much, much happier. It _might_ work in the dumbest, unicast-only setups, but I have a lot of doubts about anything more complex than that. We made the mistake of one Extreme here as a router, and that has paid us back with sweat and tears. We'll be switching it to a Juniper freeing up soon, and we'll be dancing with joy afterwards. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
>>> From here, [EMAIL PROTECTED] looks like a relatively small colo >>> customer. Yes we are relatively small, we colocate around 1500 servers in our own suite. >>>> What's he looking at big switches for? Quite frankly I can look for what I want, we are expanding into Europe and came here for some advice.. Do we have any problems here? >>> More importantly, does anyone care? Does anybody care? Dammm GOOOD JOB that you are a small minority in this world. If you are so smart, GO and CHECK the HEADERS of that POST. Was it me? NO IT WASENT. You are too smart for yourself. I am out of this... My last reply. Best Regards, Shazad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 17:29 To: Richard A Steenbergen Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Is it just me, or could nanog really benefit from being moderated, or at > least nanog-post being access controlled? God knows why I've kept skimming > it even after the majority of actual clueful network operators have long Are you volunteering to be the moderator? Moderation is alot of work, and/or would slow the list down to a crawl. Perhaps limiting who can post would be somewhat useful though. Perhaps only people actually operating "real networks", where "real networks" are somehow defined by their size or their participation in BGP. >From here, [EMAIL PROTECTED] looks like a relatively small colo customer. What's he looking at big switches for? More importantly, does anyone care? As long as I'm ranting, what about all the recent "could someone with clue from Network X please contact me privately?" posts? If I was that person at Network X, I'd want to know what your issue was before I bothered contacting you (very few of these posts have included any problem description)...both so that I could look at the problem (if there was one) before contacting you, so that I could have the appropriate person contact you (if I'm not it), and so I could not waste the time if you're trying to contact me about an issue (or non-issue) you have no business wasting my time with. network:Class-Name:network network:ID:332.209.51.128.0/19 network:Auth-Area:209.51.128.0/19 network:Network-Name:eservers-00037-01 network:IP-Network:209.51.159.224/29 network:Organization;I:eServers dot biz network:Tech-Contact;I:[EMAIL PROTECTED] network:Admin-Contact;I:664.dv2.net network:Created:20020906 network:Updated:20020906 network:Updated-By:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Haesu wrote: > Don't mean to get off-topic... but speaking the Extremes.. > Has anyone here had luck with doing some BGP stuff with Sumit 48i? Yes. The only thing I miss in their implementation is the equivalent of "neighbor default-originate". -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond Date: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 12:19:20PM -0400 Quoting Haesu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Don't mean to get off-topic... but speaking the Extremes.. > Has anyone here had luck with doing some BGP stuff with Sumit 48i? Not beyond lab setups, but yes, they speak BGP. We are about to move KTHNOC to a new datacenter shortly, at which we will speak BGP to the world using an Extreme switch. -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE I have seen these EGG EXTENDERS in my Supermarket ... pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
I agree with you, Bouncing private messages onto the forum with a purpose of making "me" look bad is really SAD. I did it accidentally BUT quoted him, he literally bounced my message as If I had sent it to NANOG. Check your headers and you will find out, I never sent that message to NANOG. Maybe you guys should stop jumping to the gun (I have received like 130 private messages now), and read the headers to see I didn't send that message to NANOG. All I can do is apologies for not being in the wrong. Peace out.. Best Regards, Shazad eServers - driving the "e" into your business. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard A Steenbergen Sent: 13 October 2003 16:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Extreme BlackDiamond On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:39:09PM +0100, Shazad - eServers wrote: > > My apologies, There was no need for him to go around calling me a "dumb > f***". > I apologies, I didn't realise I had posted his message onto the nanog > mailing list.. If the shoe fits... Is it just me, or could nanog really benefit from being moderated, or at least nanog-post being access controlled? God knows why I've kept skimming it even after the majority of actual clueful network operators have long since unsubscribed, but even this is beginning to stretch the limits of my love for a good Jerry Springer fight. Or should we all just start chanting: Susan! Susan! Susan! ? -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
> This is the second time recently that a member of > this list has dragged their own personal disputes > onto the list. I don't particularly like this > and I would be happy to see the list owner come > down hard on the perp. Banishment? You should make sure you know who the perp is before making such pronouncements (or maybe it doesn't matter).
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Is it just me, or could nanog really benefit from being moderated, or at > least nanog-post being access controlled? God knows why I've kept skimming > it even after the majority of actual clueful network operators have long Are you volunteering to be the moderator? Moderation is alot of work, and/or would slow the list down to a crawl. Perhaps limiting who can post would be somewhat useful though. Perhaps only people actually operating "real networks", where "real networks" are somehow defined by their size or their participation in BGP. >From here, [EMAIL PROTECTED] looks like a relatively small colo customer. What's he looking at big switches for? More importantly, does anyone care? As long as I'm ranting, what about all the recent "could someone with clue from Network X please contact me privately?" posts? If I was that person at Network X, I'd want to know what your issue was before I bothered contacting you (very few of these posts have included any problem description)...both so that I could look at the problem (if there was one) before contacting you, so that I could have the appropriate person contact you (if I'm not it), and so I could not waste the time if you're trying to contact me about an issue (or non-issue) you have no business wasting my time with. network:Class-Name:network network:ID:332.209.51.128.0/19 network:Auth-Area:209.51.128.0/19 network:Network-Name:eservers-00037-01 network:IP-Network:209.51.159.224/29 network:Organization;I:eServers dot biz network:Tech-Contact;I:[EMAIL PROTECTED] network:Admin-Contact;I:664.dv2.net network:Created:20020906 network:Updated:20020906 network:Updated-By:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
Don't mean to get off-topic... but speaking the Extremes.. Has anyone here had luck with doing some BGP stuff with Sumit 48i? Thanks, -hc -- Haesu C. TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Consulting, colocation, web hosting, network design and implementation http://www.towardex.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: (978)394-2867 | Office: (978)263-3399 Ext. 170 Fax: (978)263-0033 | POC: HAESU-ARIN
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Andy Walden wrote: > Actually, as far as I know, all switches and routers use the CPU to > process ICMP. It is a control protocol and the safest option is to > ensure the vendor has implemented some sort of CPU rate-limiting so it > can't be overwhelmed. Redbacks SmartEdge 800 replies to atlest ICMP ECHO in the line card ASIC. //tlund
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Joel, If you think this was a sales lead, then you are wrong. I admit, I have not really used mailing list before and accidentally CC nanog on the first correspondence, but for him to email me back calling " xxx" (you already know) was not on. I replied back to his email and DID NOT CC NANOG. So how it got onto the NANOG list is beyond me or a SERIOUS BUG. I have verified by checking the email headers that it was not sent to NANOG. On that note, like I said before I apologise to all those that have had to read it.. Regards, Shazad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Rowbottom Sent: 13 October 2003 16:46 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond At 16:39 13/10/2003, you wrote: >M apologies, There was no need for him to go around calling me a "dumb >f***". I apologies, I didn't realise I had posted his message onto the nanog >mailing list.. Marketroids using public mailing lists for sales leads should learn list etiquette and reply etiquette first. HTH HAND jx -- Joel Rowbottom :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: Head Guy, Fotopic.Net Over a million photos online :: Users in 137 countries Get your own free photo gallery online at http://www.fotopic.net
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:39:09PM +0100, Shazad - eServers wrote: > > My apologies, There was no need for him to go around calling me a "dumb > f***". > I apologies, I didn't realise I had posted his message onto the nanog > mailing list.. If the shoe fits... Is it just me, or could nanog really benefit from being moderated, or at least nanog-post being access controlled? God knows why I've kept skimming it even after the majority of actual clueful network operators have long since unsubscribed, but even this is beginning to stretch the limits of my love for a good Jerry Springer fight. Or should we all just start chanting: Susan! Susan! Susan! ? -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
If the shoe fits... -alex On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote: > > My apologies, There was no need for him to go around calling me a "dumb > f***". > I apologies, I didn't realise I had posted his message onto the nanog > mailing list.. > > Sorry. > > Regards, > Shazad > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Shazad - eServers > Sent: 13 October 2003 16:13 > To: 'Randy Bush' > Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 October 2003 16:12 > To: Shazad - eServers > Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond > > > From: "Shazad - eServers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Randy Bush'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ... > > Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate all the > comments > > I am receiving. > > Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. > > thanks for publishing my private message, you dumb fuck > > randy > > > > > > >
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
>You know what, go and fuck yourself you little whore.. >Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. >Best Regards, >Shazad >eServers - driving the "e" into your business. This is the second time recently that a member of this list has dragged their own personal disputes onto the list. I don't particularly like this and I would be happy to see the list owner come down hard on the perp. Banishment? This seems to be a lot worse than the usual annoying off-topic threads.
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
At 16:39 13/10/2003, you wrote: M apologies, There was no need for him to go around calling me a "dumb f***". I apologies, I didn't realise I had posted his message onto the nanog mailing list.. Marketroids using public mailing lists for sales leads should learn list etiquette and reply etiquette first. HTH HAND jx -- Joel Rowbottom :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: Head Guy, Fotopic.Net Over a million photos online :: Users in 137 countries Get your own free photo gallery online at http://www.fotopic.net
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
My apologies, There was no need for him to go around calling me a "dumb f***". I apologies, I didn't realise I had posted his message onto the nanog mailing list.. Sorry. Regards, Shazad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shazad - eServers Sent: 13 October 2003 16:13 To: 'Randy Bush' Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 16:12 To: Shazad - eServers Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond > From: "Shazad - eServers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Randy Bush'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate all the comments > I am receiving. > Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. thanks for publishing my private message, you dumb fuck randy
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Mikael, The 24e3 would be used for dedicated-servers only, for colocation/trasnit selling we will be using the Summit 48I. Thanks Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. Best Regards, Shazad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: 13 October 2003 16:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote: > AGGREG : These would be a mix of Extreme Alpines/BigIron4000 - 8000/Summit > 48i's depending on whether we are offering colo, ded-hosting, managed > services etc... > > ACCESS : Extreme Summit 24e3 or Foundry series. I recommend you to stay away from the 24e3:s if possible. Try to get the 48si instead if you can. The 24e3 does policing, and it does it badly. The 48si does real shaping if you need it. The 48si is a very nice box I'd say, good price point, good options. If you only need 10 or 100 and never need to sell 50 meg or so, then the 24e3 might be an option. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
You know what, go and fuck yourself you little whore.. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. Best Regards, Shazad eServers - driving the "e" into your business. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 16:12 To: Shazad - eServers Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond > From: "Shazad - eServers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Randy Bush'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate all the comments > I am receiving. > Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. thanks for publishing my private message, you dumb fuck randy
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote: > AGGREG : These would be a mix of Extreme Alpines/BigIron4000 - 8000/Summit > 48i's depending on whether we are offering colo, ded-hosting, managed > services etc... > > ACCESS : Extreme Summit 24e3 or Foundry series. I recommend you to stay away from the 24e3:s if possible. Try to get the 48si instead if you can. The 24e3 does policing, and it does it badly. The 48si does real shaping if you need it. The 48si is a very nice box I'd say, good price point, good options. If you only need 10 or 100 and never need to sell 50 meg or so, then the 24e3 might be an option. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Randy, Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate all the comments I am receiving. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. Best Regards, Shazad -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 16:03 To: Shazad - eServers Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond > DISTRID : 2 * Extreme BlackDiamonds with redundant routing engines. (highly > considering the BigIrons) > > AGGREG : These would be a mix of Extreme Alpines/BigIron4000 - 8000/Summit > 48i's depending on whether we are offering colo, ded-hosting, managed > services etc... > > ACCESS : Extreme Summit 24e3 or Foundry series. go with foundry. better even just as switches. extreme has weak control of software, so bugs at all levels. randy
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Shawn, London, UK. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. Best Regards, Shazad eServers - driving the "e" into your business. -Original Message- From: Fisher, Shawn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 15:54 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond Shazad, Where is your datacenter located? Shawn -Original Message- From: Shazad - eServers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:52 AM To: 'Matthew Sweet' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond Matt, Yes we are that is correct. We will be offering COLO and dedicated hosting and need some serious horse-power. Right now, we are set on this..,. ROUTER : 2 * Juniper M40's, these will be connected from day one to darkfibre. DISTRID : 2 * Extreme BlackDiamonds with redundant routing engines. (highly considering the BigIrons) AGGREG : These would be a mix of Extreme Alpines/BigIron4000 - 8000/Summit 48i's depending on whether we are offering colo, ded-hosting, managed services etc... ACCESS : Extreme Summit 24e3 or Foundry series. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. Best Regards, Shazad eServers - driving the "e" into your business. -Original Message- From: Matthew Sweet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 15:43 To: Shazad - eServers Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond Shazad, Are you going to do colocation or something like metro-area ethernet access services to office / colo buildings? The reason I am asking this is a company called Yipes (yipes.com) uses a similiar setup: Black Diamond for high-density switching and Juniper M20/40s for the routing services. I cannot say anything for the Black Diamond, except Yipes uses them. I am using Alpine 3808s and Summit 48sis, along with Juniper M10 routers at my datacenter. The Alpine switching have alot of nice features on them. If you are doing dedicated server/colocation, I would assume you need a higher density than I am needing. Anyways, just wanted to put my $.02 in. Matt
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Matt, Yes we are that is correct. We will be offering COLO and dedicated hosting and need some serious horse-power. Right now, we are set on this..,. ROUTER : 2 * Juniper M40's, these will be connected from day one to darkfibre. DISTRID : 2 * Extreme BlackDiamonds with redundant routing engines. (highly considering the BigIrons) AGGREG : These would be a mix of Extreme Alpines/BigIron4000 - 8000/Summit 48i's depending on whether we are offering colo, ded-hosting, managed services etc... ACCESS : Extreme Summit 24e3 or Foundry series. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions. Best Regards, Shazad eServers - driving the "e" into your business. -Original Message- From: Matthew Sweet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 15:43 To: Shazad - eServers Subject: RE: Extreme BlackDiamond Shazad, Are you going to do colocation or something like metro-area ethernet access services to office / colo buildings? The reason I am asking this is a company called Yipes (yipes.com) uses a similiar setup: Black Diamond for high-density switching and Juniper M20/40s for the routing services. I cannot say anything for the Black Diamond, except Yipes uses them. I am using Alpine 3808s and Summit 48sis, along with Juniper M10 routers at my datacenter. The Alpine switching have alot of nice features on them. If you are doing dedicated server/colocation, I would assume you need a higher density than I am needing. Anyways, just wanted to put my $.02 in. Matt
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote: > I would like to add one comment onto this, the Black Diamonds would be used > for purely switching and nothing else. Then you're betting on the right horse. Get the G8Xi cards and two MSMs per chassi and you have linerate everything. > As for as TheTollyGroup how much credibility do these guys hold? They test what they're told to test. I've read Tolly Group test of the 6500 and the Black Diamond. It's perfectly accurate. If you read the Cisco "response" test you get more facts which are not in the Tolly report. Read both and you get an accurate picture of what matters. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Extreme BlackDiamond
Firstly, a BIG BIG thanks to all the replies. I would like to add one comment onto this, the Black Diamonds would be used for purely switching and nothing else. The Junipers would do the routing, BGP tables etc... As for as TheTollyGroup how much credibility do these guys hold? Thanks again. -Shazzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shazad - eServers Sent: 13 October 2003 02:16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Extreme BlackDiamond How are these for CORE SWITCHES (distribution) compared to BigIron and the CISCO 6509? >From what I have heard and reports they are very solid switches. Thanks in advance -Shazzy
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
>>> I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based >>> architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF >>> enabled Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has >>> instructions on their webpage on how deal with it and cites CPU >>> usage as the reason. With CEF I thought the CPU wasn't involved? >>> CEF is perhaps differently implemented on different plattforms? >> >> I think CEF in HW is the key, ASIC based and not Flow based. I'm >> not all-knowlegable on which platforms do this, but the 7500, >> 12000, 2948G-L3, 4908 have it. Whether CEF is ASIC-based or in software is not an issue as such. CEF is _not_ flow routing; CEF tables contain only destinations (not source+destination or port numbers), they contain entire destination prefixes not single IP addresses, they are pre-built and maintained from the routing tables rather than added entry-by-entry as traffic arrives. CPU is still an issue in some cases because when a destination is on an attached network and has no ARP entry, there is no CEF adjacency for it; accordingly, when traffic arrives for that destination it is punted to process level in order to trigger an ARP. Once the ARP succeeds the adjacency is set up and further packets are routed via CEF (whether hardware or software according to platform). However, if the destination is not adjacent, this does not apply (since the ARP entry for the next-hop router will already be present) and all packets will be CEF-switched. (Enabling CEF is often mentioned in Cisco docs as a workaround for worm traffic problems.) -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Andy Walden wrote: > > I don't know of anyone else who *routes* ICMP. Yes, ICMP packets destined > > for the router, but Extreme actually CPU route all ICMP packets passing > > thru. > > I'm not 100% sure what your trying to say above, but all I'm refering to > is packets destined towards the device itself. Which I was not. > Maybe, maybe not. It could be more granular then that, which would allow > for addition functionality based on other fields in the IP header. Every It isn't. The ipfdb is basically a DestIP, port and mac address in its pursest form. This is the default. > Also, the original question was about switching. For layer-2 flows with > unique MAC addresses reach the CPU as well? Probably. It would in basically all switches I know of. > Have you tested this? I'm always interested in different vendor's flow > setup rates. Well, empirical studies say that "clear ipfdb" on a full ipfdb table makes the switch become unresponsive and fully occupied with ipfdb entry creation for something like 10-40 seconds. No, I have not measued it more closely than that. > I'm not sure this would make sense. How would the device know to drop or > forward the packet if a flow, even if it is a drop flow, hasn't been > created? Because the ACLs aren't applied to flows but are matched separately before a forwarding decision has been made. Think of it as a PXF grid that does things before the CPU. As far as I know they do this: L3 packet comes in. It's matched for ACL (ACLs are used to QoS stuff as well) matched for policy routing after this, it's checked in the ipfdb and if it's not found then punted to the CPU. If it's an ICMP packet it's always punted to the CPU. So dropping packets is all done in ASIC. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Andy Walden wrote: > > > Actually, as far as I know, all switches and routers use the CPU to > > process ICMP. It is a control protocol and the safest option is to ensure > > the vendor has implemented some sort of CPU rate-limiting so it can't be > > overwhelmed. > > I don't know of anyone else who *routes* ICMP. Yes, ICMP packets destined > for the router, but Extreme actually CPU route all ICMP packets passing > thru. I'm not 100% sure what your trying to say above, but all I'm refering to is packets destined towards the device itself. > > This is the kicker and real question: does it require the CPU to forward > > regular traffic? I believe the answer is yes, the Extreme is a flow-based > > architecture and the first packet of each unique flow (however it is > > defined) will need to be processed by the CPU. This is why the problems > > Yes, exactly what I'm saying. Flow here is defined as a destination IP > number. Maybe, maybe not. It could be more granular then that, which would allow for addition functionality based on other fields in the IP header. Every additional field it uses to define a flow increase the number of packets that reach the CPU expotentially. Destination could be enough though with the way some viruses scan address space at a rapid pace all creating new destination flows. Also, the original question was about switching. For layer-2 flows with unique MAC addresses reach the CPU as well? Probably. > > described above occur. The alternative is a packet-based architecure and > > does not rely on the CPU for forwarding. It doesn't take a lot of packets > > to overwhelm any CPU. > > Quite, 10kpps is enough, if even that. Have you tested this? I'm always interested in different vendor's flow setup rates. > > > They do everything in hardware when it comes to access lists, QoS etc. > > > Either it does it in ASIC without performance impact or not at all. > > > > Assuming the CPU doesn't have to process the first packet before it > > reaches the ACL, QoS policy, etc.. > > Well, actually I believe ACLs are processed on ingress before being punted > to the CPU even though the flow hasnt been set up yet. This is the > observation I have seen so far anyway, but I am not 100% sure. I'm not sure this would make sense. How would the device know to drop or forward the packet if a flow, even if it is a drop flow, hasn't been created? > I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based > architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF enabled > Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has instructions on their > webpage on how deal with it and cites CPU usage as the reason. With CEF I > thought the CPU wasn't involved? CEF is perhaps differently implemented on > different plattforms? CEF certainly can limit the amount the CPU is used, and DCEF even more. I'm not sure that Extreme has an equivilant feature though. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
> > I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based > > architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF enabled > > Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has instructions on their > > webpage on how deal with it and cites CPU usage as the reason. With CEF I > > thought the CPU wasn't involved? CEF is perhaps differently implemented on > > different plattforms? > > I think CEF in HW is the key, ASIC based and not Flow based. > I'm not all-knowlegable on which platforms do this, but the 7500, 12000, > 2948G-L3, 4908 have it. Yup. We have 6509s with Sup2/MSFC2/PFC2, and have had no problems with ICMP in connection with recent virus/worm attacks. Oh yeah, we also find the 6509s work very well as routers. Full routing tables, etc. YMMV. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
This is the kicker and real question: does it require the CPU to forward regular traffic? I believe the answer is yes, the Extreme is a flow-based architecture and the first packet of each unique flow (however it is defined) will need to be processed by the CPU. This is why the problems Yes, exactly what I'm saying. Flow here is defined as a destination IP number. No... Flow is defined as at least the unique combination of source and destination addresses, and, often, the unique combination of source and destination IP addresses and port numbers + the layer 4 protocol used. I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF enabled Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has instructions on their webpage on how deal with it and cites CPU usage as the reason. With CEF I thought the CPU wasn't involved? CEF is perhaps differently implemented on different plattforms? CEF is a flow-based solution much like Extreme's. There are enhancements to CEF in some of Cisco's newer products (such as dCEF) which take some of this off of the CPU. Owen
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based > architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF enabled > Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has instructions on their > webpage on how deal with it and cites CPU usage as the reason. With CEF I > thought the CPU wasn't involved? CEF is perhaps differently implemented on > different plattforms? I think CEF in HW is the key, ASIC based and not Flow based. I'm not all-knowlegable on which platforms do this, but the 7500, 12000, 2948G-L3, 4908 have it.
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Andy Walden wrote: > Actually, as far as I know, all switches and routers use the CPU to > process ICMP. It is a control protocol and the safest option is to ensure > the vendor has implemented some sort of CPU rate-limiting so it can't be > overwhelmed. I don't know of anyone else who *routes* ICMP. Yes, ICMP packets destined for the router, but Extreme actually CPU route all ICMP packets passing thru. > This is the kicker and real question: does it require the CPU to forward > regular traffic? I believe the answer is yes, the Extreme is a flow-based > architecture and the first packet of each unique flow (however it is > defined) will need to be processed by the CPU. This is why the problems Yes, exactly what I'm saying. Flow here is defined as a destination IP number. > described above occur. The alternative is a packet-based architecure and > does not rely on the CPU for forwarding. It doesn't take a lot of packets > to overwhelm any CPU. Quite, 10kpps is enough, if even that. > > They do everything in hardware when it comes to access lists, QoS etc. > > Either it does it in ASIC without performance impact or not at all. > > Assuming the CPU doesn't have to process the first packet before it > reaches the ACL, QoS policy, etc.. Well, actually I believe ACLs are processed on ingress before being punted to the CPU even though the flow hasnt been set up yet. This is the observation I have seen so far anyway, but I am not 100% sure. I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF enabled Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has instructions on their webpage on how deal with it and cites CPU usage as the reason. With CEF I thought the CPU wasn't involved? CEF is perhaps differently implemented on different plattforms? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote: > How are these for CORE SWITCHES (distribution) compared to BigIron and the > CISCO 6509? > From what I have heard and reports they are very solid switches. As long as you only use them for switching, they're fine :) For routing, I wouldn't touch em with a 10 foot pole, but I can also say that for the BigIron, or the 6509. If you want a router, buy a router...
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote: > > > How are these for CORE SWITCHES (distribution) compared to BigIron and the > > CISCO 6509? > > >From what I have heard and reports they are very solid switches. > > Some things to know about them: > > They use CPU to route ICMP just like all Extreme equipment (makes it > harder to diagnose network trouble using ICMP). Actually, as far as I know, all switches and routers use the CPU to process ICMP. It is a control protocol and the safest option is to ensure the vendor has implemented some sort of CPU rate-limiting so it can't be overwhelmed. > They're very quick and stable when it comes to forwarding traffic that has > a normal pattern, but they do not perform well when it comes to handling > stuff like DoS attacks that generates packets that are not in its ipfdb. > The last months virus attacks have not been fun to us (both the ICMP and > the scanning from infected customers and our aggregates being scanned from > infected internet hosts). This is the kicker and real question: does it require the CPU to forward regular traffic? I believe the answer is yes, the Extreme is a flow-based architecture and the first packet of each unique flow (however it is defined) will need to be processed by the CPU. This is why the problems described above occur. The alternative is a packet-based architecure and does not rely on the CPU for forwarding. It doesn't take a lot of packets to overwhelm any CPU. > They do everything in hardware when it comes to access lists, QoS etc. > Either it does it in ASIC without performance impact or not at all. Assuming the CPU doesn't have to process the first packet before it reaches the ACL, QoS policy, etc.. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
Re: Extreme BlackDiamond
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote: > How are these for CORE SWITCHES (distribution) compared to BigIron and the > CISCO 6509? > >From what I have heard and reports they are very solid switches. Some things to know about them: They use CPU to route ICMP just like all Extreme equipment (makes it harder to diagnose network trouble using ICMP). They have a 256k entry ipfdb (fastpath hardware L3 hostbased route-cache). They're very quick and stable when it comes to forwarding traffic that has a normal pattern, but they do not perform well when it comes to handling stuff like DoS attacks that generates packets that are not in its ipfdb. The last months virus attacks have not been fun to us (both the ICMP and the scanning from infected customers and our aggregates being scanned from infected internet hosts). They do everything in hardware when it comes to access lists, QoS etc. Either it does it in ASIC without performance impact or not at all. Just like all other equipment you'd better look it thru thoroughly for your application and check what drawbacks might hit you etc. I don't know much about the BigIron. but it's hard to compare to a 6509 unless you know what's in the 6509. Compare it to a Sup1A with older cards and the Black Diamond is a performance screamer that'll do circles around the 6509, bring out the OSMs and all the other 7600 stuff and that's a better core router probably (but much much more expensive). I like the fact that all Extreme equipment of the same generation (they have two total) use the same ASICs and the same software and you can do the same things in all of them. Very consistant. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Extreme BlackDiamond
How are these for CORE SWITCHES (distribution) compared to BigIron and the CISCO 6509? >From what I have heard and reports they are very solid switches. Thanks in advance -Shazzy
