[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Cisco uRPF failures

Subject: Cisco uRPF failures
From: christopher.morrow at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:13:06 -0400
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <00c401c9072b$f46a38c0$dd3eaa40$@com> <[email protected]> <007401c90e25$6eaf2280$4c0d6780$@com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On 9/6/08, Anton Kapela <tkapela at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at 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

References:
- Force10 Gear - Opinions
  - From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
- Force10 Gear - Opinions
  - From: james at towardex.com (James Jun)
- Force10 Gear - Opinions
  - From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
- Force10 Gear - Opinions
  - From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl Jr.)
- Cisco uRPF failures
  - From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
- Cisco uRPF failures
  - From: tkapela at gmail.com (Anton Kapela)

Prev by Date: only WV FIBER now peering with Atrivo / Intercage
Next by Date: only WV FIBER now peering with Atrivo / Intercage
Previous by thread: Cisco uRPF failures
Next by thread: Cisco uRPF failures
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread