I'm confused here, are you intentionally running larger MTU interfaces than
the packet filter can handle with default config, and not wanting to change
the tunable to fix the config for buffer size for the packet filter, or am
I misreading?
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:51 PM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
On 5/10/23 15:55, Tom Beecher wrote:
That could just as easily happen today. Every OS release has all
kinds of changes to defaults, and frequently don't get caught until
they break something. Even if today's FreeBSD defaults worked for this
scenario, the next release could change to a valu
on Thu, May 04, 2023 at 08:09:01PM -0600, Forrest Christian (List Account)
wrote:
> I can't speak for aptum, but I'm curious as to why this is important to
> you? I'm not trying to discount this at all, just curious why this
> matters in the internet of 2023.
For the past 20 years, I've been u
>
> or if future FreeBSD updates decide to "go their own
> way"... yes.
>
That could just as easily happen today. Every OS release has all kinds of
changes to defaults, and frequently don't get caught until they break
something. Even if today's FreeBSD defaults worked for this scenario, the
next
>
> No, but it's brittle. A workaround, not a solution. Likely to break
> during future maintenance. "Unpredictable" as Mark put it.
>
> Nothing a routing daemon does should involve the kernel BPF. The next
> sysadmin won't be expecting it.
Not sure I agree.
Implemented defaults may not be appro
Dave, have you seen any recent output from Cisco's VNI on the matter of
traffic growth? Or Sandvine's? How does it compare with your perception?
Cheers,
Etienne
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 10:40 PM Dave Taht wrote:
> Up until this moment I was feeling that my take on the decline of traffic
> growth
6 matches
Mail list logo
