There is a price to pay for freedom. I would prefer to receive (or have
to personally control) all the nastiness that appears in my inbox than
give up any of my Internet freedoms. But that is my opinion of what is
right for me.
That, however, does not answer your question. My answer is that we
I believe it to be true that all policy route traffic is processor
switched rather than CEF on the 75xx platform. If so, the 75xx might not
be handling all it's being asked to and dropping stuff in a
non-deterministic way.
* james said:
>
> There were some posts to this list last week about 75x
* Sean Donelan said:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Steve Carter wrote:
> > The rate-limiters have become more interesting recently, meaning they've
> > actually started dropping packets (quite a lot in some cases) because of
> > the widespread exploitation of unpatched wi
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't
> > recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're
> > doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing tra
* Richard A Steenbergen said:
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:10:57AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > In a message written on Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:55:30AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > > Yes, it is that hard. Sadly, almost everyone I see push the IRR
> > > > works for a small ISP. And at lea
Even they don't like you dude ... the sources are forged ... :)
-Steve
* neal rauhauser said:
>
>
> No one loves me and I don't get much email from the folks who tolerate
> me. I just got back from having lunch with some guys who tolerate me and
> I found scads of messages from all over -the
* Tim Rand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030227 16:39]:
> Hi -
> I have searched the archives but have not found an answer to my question
> - is there any danger in using excessively high TTL values with
> ebgp-multihop? For example, neighbor x.x.x.x ebgp-multihop 255 - 255 is
> generally much higher than
