[177123] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Charter ARP Leak
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Bedard)
Tue Dec 30 00:13:38 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>,
Corey Touchet <corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com>
From: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:13:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <op.xrnywqfdtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
They generally use IPDR on the CMTS for accounting, and I don't believe it =
counts ARP. =20
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Sent: =E2=80=8E12/=E2=80=8E29/=E2=80=8E2014 11:34 PM
To: "Corey Touchet" <corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Charter ARP Leak
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:41:45 -0500, Corey Touchet =20
<corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> wrote:
> We'll I would for one be very interested if the 8 ARP packets a second =20
> count against the caps.
Depends on where and what counters they probe. I would assume they look at =
=20
"unicast" fields, so it wouldn't counted. (of course, *I* would use =20
netflow accounting, but I care about my data being accurate.)
--Ricky
