Do the merit servers have a habit of dropping some messages?
I sent a message this morning that never made it to the list:
May 22 08:41:03 cpu1693
postfix/qmgr[9876]: 6AC4D17030: from=<ralph@istop.com>,size=1108, nrcpt=1
(queue active)
May 22 08:41:04 cpu1693
postfix/smtp[5066]: 6AC4D17030: to=<nanog@merit.edu>, relay=mail.merit.edu[198.108.1.41], delay=1, status=sent (250 Ok: queued as
653EA5DD9A)
Ralph Doncaster
principal, IStop.com
div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc.
I've gotten at least 5 messages from you on this list today...
Yeah, maybe NANOG implemented WFQ...
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
Further tests seem to indicate that every message posted to the list is
read/approved by a human.
http://ns.istop.com/~ralph/censored.txt
-Ralph
It's not realtime censored (since my emails get through quite quickly, and
if Merit is actually hiring people to censor NANOG 24/7 someone needs to
reevaluate their funding), but I have seen censoring in the past which is
almost comical in nature, for example the "Sexual Harassment" filter.
Best be careful, the PC police are coming for you.
It's not realtime censored (since my emails get through quite quickly, and
if Merit is actually hiring people to censor NANOG 24/7 someone needs to
reevaluate their funding), but I have seen censoring in the past which is
almost comical in nature, for example the "Sexual Harassment" filter.
So there's a netnanny-like bot that looks for "bad words" and filters the
posts?
Best be careful, the PC police are coming for you.
If the US succeeds in assymilating Canada as the 53rd state, I could avoid
the Merkans by moving to Cuba. 
-Ralph
I dunno, if you really want to have this debate, I don't see why it's
unreasonable for the list parents to not want rampant cursing.
If you ask me, I think that this is analagous to the situation where some
guy gets rejected at a job interview because he "doesn't have a degree",
which is in truth just an excuse.
I'm not saying that the people on this list don't like you, I'm just
saying that if you keep posting about CPU utilization when using linux for
routing and about how cisco sucks, in a very frequent manner, it will make
small idiosyncracies such as cursing stand out that much more.
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
I dunno, if you really want to have this debate, I don't see why it's
unreasonable for the list parents to not want rampant cursing.
In my travels to the southeast US, I found there are still people there
who consider it inappropriate for a white woman to date a black man. I
would hope that all on this list understand how illogical that is. To me
it seems just as illogical to say it's inapproprate to use one word over
another, when they both have the same meaning.
I'm not saying that the people on this list don't like you, I'm just
saying that if you keep posting about CPU utilization when using linux for
routing and about how cisco sucks, in a very frequent manner, it will make
small idiosyncracies such as cursing stand out that much more.
Lots of people don't like me, and I like it that way. Saves me a lot
nuisance from people who might think you're their friend.
From the number of personal replies I got about these topics, it seems
like many people are interested in sharing information about how to do
routing on a budget, or how to avoid getting shot in the foot with your
Cisco box. I thought my posts were far more technical and relevant to
network operation than the marketing hype being spewed by some
others. However, if the consensus is my posts are off-topic, I'll happily
shut up wait to be told what are accpetable topics.
-Ralph
Lots of people don't like me, and I like it that way.
Congratulations, you've added one more to your tally. Please post again
when you've got something related to network operations to say. Or if you
just feel like whining, take it to inet-access so we don't have to hear
it.
-Bill
> I dunno, if you really want to have this debate, I don't see why it's
> unreasonable for the list parents to not want rampant cursing.In my travels to the southeast US, I found there are still people there
who consider it inappropriate for a white woman to date a black man. I
would hope that all on this list understand how illogical that is. To me
it seems just as illogical to say it's inapproprate to use one word over
another, when they both have the same meaning.
Come on, I curse like George Carlin but I don't to it in front of
customers. Are you telling me there is no such thing as appropriate
behavior in a public forum?
I understand your argument. But the point is, this is somebody elses
sandbox we're playing in. Calm down and play nice, or you'll have people
trying to kick you out.
> I'm not saying that the people on this list don't like you, I'm just
> saying that if you keep posting about CPU utilization when using linux for
> routing and about how cisco sucks, in a very frequent manner, it will make
> small idiosyncracies such as cursing stand out that much more.Lots of people don't like me, and I like it that way. Saves me a lot
nuisance from people who might think you're their friend.
Speaking of logic, that's an interesting way of putting things.
>From the number of personal replies I got about these topics, it seems
like many people are interested in sharing information about how to do
routing on a budget, or how to avoid getting shot in the foot with your
Cisco box.
Routing on a budget? Dude, you can buy a 7200 for $2 grand. Why bother
with a linux box? Heh, at least use FreeBSD 
I thought my posts were far more technical and relevant to
network operation than the marketing hype being spewed by some
others. However, if the consensus is my posts are off-topic, I'll happily
shut up wait to be told what are accpetable topics.
I don't think they're off topic. But other people do. YMMV. HTH.
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
andy and others who don't have the will or technology to plonk this
clue-free troll, could you at least please not feed it? thanks.
randy
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net>
To: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Subject: Re: list problems?
blah blah blah
Before the dot com implosion, they weren't nearly that inexpensive. The
average corporate user will also need smartnet (what's that on a 7200, a K
or a few per year?) for support, warranty, and software updates. Some
people just don't appreciate being nickled and dimed by cisco and forced
to either buy much more router than they need, or risk ending up with
another cisco boat anchor router when the platform they chose can no
longer do the job in the limited memory config supported.
I have a consulting customer who, against my strong recommendation, bought
a non-cisco router to multihome with. It's PC based, runs Linux, and with
the exception of the gated BGP issue that bit everyone running gated a few
months ago, has worked just fine. It's not as easy to work with in most
cases, but there are some definite advantages, and some things that Linux
actually makes easier. They'd initially bought a 2621 when multihoming
was just a thought, and by the time it was a reality, 64mb on a 2621
couldn't handle full routes. The C&W/PSI depeering (which did affect
this customer, as they were single homed to C&W at the time and did
regular business with networks single homed to PSI) was proof that without
full routes, you're not really multihomed.
I would have to say for any Linux/BSD platform to be a viable routing solution, you have to eliminate all moving parts or as much as possible, ie. no hard drives because hard drives will fail. Not much you can do about the cooling fans in various parts of the machine though which routers also tend to have. Solid state storage would be the way to go as far as what the OS is installed on. You have to have something to imitate flash on the common router. Otherwise, if you can get the functionality out of a PC, I say go for it! The processing power of a modern PC is far beyond any router I can think of. I suppose it would just be a matter of how efficient your kernel, TCP/IP stack and routing daemon would be at that point.
> > >From the number of personal replies I got about these topics, it seems
> > like many people are interested in sharing information about how to do
> > routing on a budget, or how to avoid getting shot in the foot with your
> > Cisco box.
>
> Routing on a budget? Dude, you can buy a 7200 for $2 grand. Why bother
> with a linux box? Heh, at least use FreeBSDBefore the dot com implosion, they weren't nearly that inexpensive. The
average corporate user will also need smartnet (what's that on a 7200, a K
or a few per year?) for support, warranty, and software updates. Some
people just don't appreciate being nickled and dimed by cisco and forced
to either buy much more router than they need, or risk ending up with
another cisco boat anchor router when the platform they chose can no
longer do the job in the limited memory config supported.I have a consulting customer who, against my strong recommendation, bought
a non-cisco router to multihome with. It's PC based, runs Linux, and with
the exception of the gated BGP issue that bit everyone running gated a few
months ago, has worked just fine. It's not as easy to work with in most
cases, but there are some definite advantages, and some things that Linux
actually makes easier. They'd initially bought a 2621 when multihoming
was just a thought, and by the time it was a reality, 64mb on a 2621
couldn't handle full routes. The C&W/PSI depeering (which did affect
this customer, as they were single homed to C&W at the time and did
regular business with networks single homed to PSI) was proof that without
full routes, you're not really multihomed.--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route
System Administrator | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
Vinny Abello
Network Engineer
Server Management
vinny@tellurian.com
(973)300-9211 x 125
(973)940-6125 (Direct)
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection
http://www.tellurian.com (888)TELLURIAN
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 09:26:41 -0400
From: Vinny Abello
I would have to say for any Linux/BSD platform to be a viable
I suppose it's been awhile since this thread has made the rounds,
so I'll jump in for a moment...
routing solution, you have to eliminate all moving parts or
as much as possible, ie. no hard drives because hard drives
EIDE-based flash drives have become very inexpensive. Some
embedded systems use CompactFlash boards.
will fail. Not much you can do about the cooling fans in
It's always nice if the CPU is happy with a "big enough" heatsink
and no fans.
various parts of the machine though which routers also tend
to have. Solid state storage would be the way to go as far as
what the OS is installed on. You have to have something to
I think that 128 MB CompactFlash boards are < $60 new now. I've
not priced drives recently, but I'm sure they're similar.
imitate flash on the common router. Otherwise, if you can get
the functionality out of a PC, I say go for it! The
processing power of a modern PC is far beyond any router I
Yes and no. The central CPU, yes. The line cards, no.
can think of. I suppose it would just be a matter of how
efficient your kernel, TCP/IP stack and routing daemon would
be at that point.
You left out one critical thing: The bus/backplane.
For DS1 service or a few DS3s, standard PCI will work fine. But
once the bus is maxed out... you need something bigger (wider or
faster bus) or better (cPSB ethernet midplane).
Has anyone had the privilege of playing with cPSB gear? If so,
I'd like to know what your experiences were...
That said, I'm definitely a proponent of "roll your own" routers,
although the great prices on used turnkey gear might just make
RYO routing more expensive nowadays. (I assume that anyone
clueful enough to build a router probably wouldn't need the
bigger vendor service contracts.) Then again, if you need
different behavior and can cut code, RYO is more flexible.
common router. Otherwise, if you can get the functionality out of a PC, I
say go for it! The processing power of a modern PC is far beyond any router
I can think of. I suppose it would just be a matter of how efficient your
kernel, TCP/IP stack and routing daemon would be at that point.
And that's MY real question. Who has actually done this in a production
environment that can speak with some real experience on the topic? What
can you replace with a linux box to route and run BGP for you in real
life? A 7200? Bigger.
I don't have the facilities to try these things out for real, and
frankly would be worried about the uptime and finding the RIGHT PC
hardware that isn't complete junk.
So I guess it's really two questions: what is a PC capable of replacing
as far as throughput goes, and just how reliable can a clone (or pick
your manufacturer) be compared to a unit that was designed by electronic
engineers to function as a 24x7 mission critical box?
Daryl G. Jurbala
Independent Consultant (read: looking for a job)
daryl@introspect.net
And that's MY real question. Who has actually done this in a production
environment that can speak with some real experience on the topic? What
can you replace with a linux box to route and run BGP for you in real
life? A 7200? Bigger.
I ran a 100% PC router network for almost 2 years. I used them from
everything from edge aggregation to core routers. You can make BGP do
whatever you want in real life on a PC. I used modified GateD code and
after some work became very happy with it.
I don't have the facilities to try these things out for real, and
frankly would be worried about the uptime and finding the RIGHT PC
hardware that isn't complete junk.
Yes, you need to build your own.
So I guess it's really two questions: what is a PC capable of replacing
as far as throughput goes, and just how reliable can a clone (or pick
your manufacturer) be compared to a unit that was designed by electronic
engineers to function as a 24x7 mission critical box?
When you want to push over 30 meg you are better off looking at something
other then a x86 to route packets.
<>
Nathan Stratton CTO, Exario Networks, Inc.
nathan at robotics.net nathan at exario.net
http://www.robotics.net http://www.exario.net
Remember that a pc may have some certain functions that are "more
powerful" than a router but a pc is a much more general computer.
Routers are supposed to be and usually designed to do one thing only,
route, not play quake, balance your check book, browse the net, etc etc.
So although for example a gsr-12000 may hhave a slower cpu than the
machine on your desk it probably will route and pass more traffic than
your pc ever will because of its design. Not to say you can't route
well with a linux or bsd system you can but at the high-end probably not
as well.
"Not to say you can't route well with a linux or bsd system you can but at the high-end probably not as well."
Tell that to Juniper.
Scott Granados wrote:
Vinny Abello wrote:
>
> I would have to say for any Linux/BSD platform to be a viable
> routing solution, you have to eliminate all moving parts or as much
> as possible, ie. no hard drives because hard drives will fail. Not
> much you can do about the cooling fans in various parts of the
> machine though which routers also tend to have. Solid state
> storage would be the way to go as far as what the OS is installed
> on. You have to have something to imitate flash on the common
> router. Otherwise, if you can get the functionality out of a PC,
> I say go for it! The processing power of a modern PC is far beyond
> any router I can think of. I suppose it would just be a matter of
> how efficient your kernel, TCP/IP stack and routing daemon would
> be at that point.I've several comments here.
First off, you're right about moving parts generally being a bad thing.
However, it is not always necessary to eliminate the hard drive. Two
drives in a RAID-0 configuration may be reliable enough. Especially if
the failure of a single drive sets off sufficient alarms so that it can
quickly be hot-swapped for a new drive.
I'm assuming you meant RAID-1. In RAID-0 if you 'swapped' any drive all your striped data is toast.
The real problem with using PCs is bandwidth and hardware reliability.
PCs generally don't have many hot-swappable parts. You can get hot-swap
hard drive assemblies without too much work, and redundant power
supplies can be purchased. A motherboard that allows hot-swapping of
PCI cards (usually by having multiple busses and a mechanism to turn
them off individually) is very rare. You can get dual-CPU motherboards,
but not with the processors being hot swappable. And I don't know if
any will allow the system to transparently fail over from one CPU to
another, should the primary fail.
I agree with you on that. Hot swapability for various interfaces is something routers obviously have over PC's.
Then there's the issue of the PCI bus. Standard PCI (32-bit 33MHz) has
a theoretical maximum bandwidth of about 1Gbit/s. But you can never use
all of a PCI bus's bandwidth, so actual limits will be less than this.
True... unless going for 64 bit PCI at 66MHz... still it's obvious that routers are designed for one simple purpose and generally have larger backplanes to handle that.
When you're doing software routing, every packet must cross the bus
twice - once for the receive and once for the send. So your standard
PCI bus (if used for nothing but packets) has a top speed of 500Mbit/s.
Which is less than three ports of full-duplex fast Ethernet at line
rate. Multiple busses and/or 64-bit 66MHz PCI can increase this limit,
but now you're talking about much more expensive motherboards.You can dramatically improve throughput if you can get line cards that
have on-board forwarding chips. If cards can forward packets between
each other without getting the CPU involved, then packets can cross the
PCI bus only once. But these kinds of line cards are not cheap, if they
can be found at all. And you will need some way of downloading your
kernel routing table into the cards, which may require some serious OS
hacking.In other words, a PC equipped to be as reliable and capable as a decent
router will likely end up costing as much as a router. And the reason
has nothing to do with the CPU speed or the operating system.
I agree a router is probably more efficient in just routing packets, but in complex filtering or traffic manipulation/packet sniffing, a PC might have the edge.
Don't get me wrong. I would never use a PC for a router, just as I wouldn't try to run my workstation as a 7206. It's all just hypothesizing.
Vinny Abello
Network Engineer
Server Management
vinny@tellurian.com
(973)300-9211 x 125
(973)940-6125 (Direct)
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection
http://www.tellurian.com (888)TELLURIAN
"Not to say you can't route well with a linux or bsd system you can but
at the high-end probably not as well."Tell that to Juniper.
routing != forwarding
routers have two jobs, both critical
randy