|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 22:39:11 +0000 From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> In-Reply-To: <B4F925B1-F550-4003-922B-8590F49574B2@netconsonance.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 5/7/12 21:17 , Jo Rhett wrote: > > On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote: >> On 3/27/12 23:21 , Roberts, Brent wrote: >>> Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with >>> multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of >>> traffic. BGP >> Doesn't support URPF which makes it unsuitable for RTBH and therefore > > I was just about to pipe up and say "they do it fine!" and then I > remembered that we built automatic filtering provisioning so that each > edge customer got filters applied automatically based on their static > assignments from us, or from IRR tables if a checkbox was marked. The > boxes handled 1000x ports with ~6 filters per port no problem, but yeah, > real uRPF would be nice. Yeah, there's enough CAM on EJ linecards for the resultant rules either way but I know what I'd prefer. I do use and am reasonably happy with exascale, just not in that role. > -- > Jo Rhett > Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet > projects. > > >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |