nanog mailing list archives
Re: image stream routers
From: tony sarendal <dualcyclone () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:33:04 +0100
... until you get an inbound ddos over that shiny gige at 1.44 Mpps. in today's world, planning for normal circumstances is woefully insufficient, you have to spec based on worst case numbers because you're almost guaranteed they will hit your network upside the head in the future.
If I have a GE link and get DDOS'ed at 1.44Mpps I'm on the wrong side of the bottleneck to do much about it, am I not ? I don't disagree on that forwarding equipment should be able to handle worst case situations, but I have never worked on a packet switching network where that is the case, especially not when counting peers and transits.
Current thread:
- Quality of User Experience (was RE: image stream routers), (continued)
- Quality of User Experience (was RE: image stream routers) Christopher J. Wolff (Sep 16)
- Re: Quality of User Experience (was RE: image stream routers) Lincoln Dale (Sep 17)
- Re: Quality of User Experience (was RE: image stream routers) Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 17)
- Re: Quality of User Experience (was RE: image stream routers) Randy Bush (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers tony sarendal (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers sthaug (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers tony sarendal (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers tony sarendal (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers Paul G (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers Deepak Jain (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers tony sarendal (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers Jon Lewis (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers sthaug (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers Edward B. Dreger (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers Edward B. Dreger (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers Lincoln Dale (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers Dan Hollis (Sep 17)
- Re: image stream routers Lincoln Dale (Sep 17)