Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

- Original Message - From: "Joe Greco" To: "Dobbins, Roland" Cc: "NANOG list" Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Vyatta as a BRAS On Jul 14, 2010, at 10:17 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > The truth is that you can keep throwing CPU at a problem as well. I > can = size

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

> On Jul 14, 2010, at 10:17 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > > > The truth is that you can keep throwing CPU at a problem as well. I can = > size a software based router such that it can remain available. > > Not against mpps, or even high kpps, you can't, unfortunately. Really? I'm positive that I can,

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On 7/13/10 11:11 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:02 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: Dangerous in places where forwarding table exceeds hardware cache limits. (See Code Red worm stories) During the Code Red/Nimda period (2001), and on into the Slammer/Blaster/Nachi period (2003),

Root Zone DNSSEC Deployment Technical Status Update

Root Zone DNSSEC Deployment Technical Status Update 2010-07-14 This is the eleventh of a series of technical status updates intended to inform a technical audience on progress in signing the root zone of the DNS. RESOURCES Details of the project, including documentation published to date, can b

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

> Is the CRS-1 hardware or software? > Lots of custom hardware in there - but lots of processing cores that look > suspiciously like software engines too. It might well be software engines in there, but that's not the point here. The linecards (MSC/PLIM etc.) in a CRS is designed to handle wirerat

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Jul 15, 2010, at 1:49 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > CEF is CEF is CEF, whether done on a 2600 or a 7200 or a GSR. Now, don't get > me wrong; the engineers who make massively parallel forwarding engines are > creative and smart folks, and have come up with very elegant methods of > moving the bit

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

> > I wasn't aware that the 7206 and M20 classified as software-based. > > I don't see why you could call it anything but a software router. The 7206 yes. The M20, no. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

> Regardless of recommendations, people are using commodity server-grade SMP > hardware to run commodity OS's to get the job done, and given the people who > have chimed in here, apparently are doing it without lots of problems. The > increase on this and other lists of questions about Mikrotik

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: I wasn't aware that the 7206 and M20 classified as software-based. I don't see why you could call it anything but a software router. That's sort of why things like it and the 7500 before it lasted so long. As the thing ages, cisco comes ou

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 08:39:50 am Dobbins, Roland wrote: > And it's not *my* definition - 'hardware-based' vs. 'software-based' are the > terms to describe these two fundamental architectural classes of router > *within Cisco itself*. [snip] > There's a world of difference in packet-handl

NOC Best Practices

Hello Everyone, I am currently working on building a NOC so i'm looking for materials/pointers to Best Practices documented out there. On the top of my head are things like: 1) Documenting Incidents and handling them 2) Documenting Syslog messages 3) Documenting Vendor Software Bugs 4) Shift to

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Jul 14, 2010, at 10:17 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > The truth is that you can keep throwing CPU at a problem as well. I can size > a software based router such that it can remain available. Not against mpps, or even high kpps, you can't, unfortunately. > Software based platforms have an incredib

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

> On Jul 14, 2010, at 5:45 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > > That's just a completely ignorant statement to make. > > It's based on a great deal of real-world experience; I'm sorry you consider= > that to be 'ignorant'. You're speaking to someone who has extensive experience with "software" based routers

Re: OER/PfR with BGP for inbound load sharing

On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Dylan Ebner wrote: > I should look for other options to balance my inbound traffic. Beyond the binary choice to advertise or not to advertise a given prefix via a given peer/upstream and/or any TE policies your peers/upstreams may support via community/attribute

OER/PfR with BGP for inbound load sharing

Does anyone have any experience with using OER for inbound load sharing? I am looking to see if people are generaly satisfied with it's abilities or if I should look for other options to balance my inbound traffic. I have two connections (one 50Mb and one 25Mb) with partial BGP routes across two

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > There might be contractual reasons not to enable that feature. 8-/ Ignoring is generally pretty harmless; dropping can break traceroute, RSVP, et. al. Conversely, there are also generally pretty strong contractual reasons not to have one's

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

* Roland Dobbins: > On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> There's also the question of IP options (or extension headers). 8-) > > I know that some modern hardware-based routers have the ability to > either ignore options, or to drop option packets altogether. There might be cont

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > From or to your customers? Both. > Stopping customer-sourced attacks is probably a good thing for the Internet > at learge. Concur 100%. > And you can't combat attacks targeted at customers within your own network > unless you've got ver

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

* Roland Dobbins: > That's what I meant - even a very small botnet can easily overwhelm > software-based edge routers. >From or to your customers? Stopping customer-sourced attacks is probably a good thing for the Internet at learge. And you can't combat attacks targeted at customers within you

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > There's also the question of IP options (or extension headers). 8-) I know that some modern hardware-based routers have the ability to either ignore options, or to drop option packets altogether. I believe the same is now true of IPv6 extens

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

* Valdis Kletnieks: > (cue weasel-words about those routers using ASICs for most forwarding, but > doing multicast forwarding in software in 5.. 4.. 3..) There's also the question of IP options (or extension headers). 8-) -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://ww

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:01 PM, wrote: > But as others have stated, the 7206 has at least some hardware acceleration, Unfortunately, said statements are factually incorrect. 7200s have no hardware acceleration of any type whatsoever. from

RE: Receive Digest

I got it. Thanks you to all... Yasir Munir Abbasi Senior Network Engineer Ciklum Pakistan 2nd floor, Software Technology Park II, Evacuee Trust Plaza F-5/1, Islamabad Tel  + 92 51 2826114 Fax +92 51 2870756 Mob +92 333 5605512 EMail: y...@ciklum.net -Original Message- From: Marc Powell

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:18:18 -, "Dobbins, Roland" said: > Right. And to date, such routers make use of ASICs - i.e., 'hardware-based' > routers, in the vernacular. > > Routers which use only centralized, general-purpose processors can't handle > even a fraction of 'line-rate' without tanking

Re: Receive Digest

On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Yasir Munir Abbasi wrote: > Dear, > > I always receive digest with volume number, where number of email > correspondence shown. That is very grim for reading. Is there any possibility > I can receive individual email correspondence. Thanks Standard mailman. Go to

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:34 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > CRS-1 uses multicore processors (hundreds of cores) for forwarding on their > linecards, and they achieve 40+ Mpps per linecard. The CRS-1 makes use of the Metro subsystem for forwarding, with multiple Metros per Modular Service Card (