nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cisco uRPF failures
From: "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:13:06 -0400
On 9/6/08, Anton Kapela <tkapela () gmail com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett () netconsonance com> wrote: > found a network operator using uRPF on Cisco gear. > (note: network operator. it's probably fine for several-hundred-meg > enterprise sites) Forgive me, but what does bits/sec have to do with anything?
it's possible that on some platforms the uRPF check happens on the main processor, or on a linecard processor. So, bps rates (proxied for by pps rates) matter greatly, on those platforms. -Chris
Current thread:
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions jim deleskie (Sep 01)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Owen DeLong (Sep 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 03)
- RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions James Jun (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Sep 03)
- Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Anton Kapela (Sep 06)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Christopher Morrow (Sep 06)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Sam Stickland (Sep 07)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Saku Ytti (Sep 08)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Saku Ytti (Sep 11)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Brandon Ewing (Sep 13)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Saku Ytti (Sep 13)
- RE: Cisco uRPF failures Tom Zingale (tomz) (Sep 15)
- RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions James Jun (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Brian Feeny (Sep 03)