nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter...
From: "Brett D. Watson" <bwatson () genuity net>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:55:40 -0700
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Tony Li wrote:You should be more specific about _why_ you want a MUCH bigger CPU. IMHO, the box needs more packet switching capacity (and more backplane bandwidth), but there's enough CPU there for the OS.Recomputing larger route tables, especially OSPF. Tunneling. Encryption. Acess list filtering. Finer grain accounting (I'd love to see usage stats for each interface over a day or so right from the router). And most important to me, not becoming unusuable during a major routing change.
well, there is netflow. not quite the granularity you're probably looking for but it helps. and since frontier has signed an exclusive deal with cisco i suspect they might start moving more of the "probe" functionality into the routers and switches. the cat5k now supports a mini-rmon in the box. -brett - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter..., (continued)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... alex (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Jim Van Baalen (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... alex (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Jim Van Baalen (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... alex (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Tony Li (Dec 20)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Tony Li (Dec 20)