[192906] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Forwarding issues related to MACs starting with a 4 or a 6 (Was:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Fri Dec 2 10:30:00 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20161202143213.GT513@Vurt.local>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:29:56 -0500
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Vendors, take this issue more serious. Realise that for operators
> these issues are _extremely_ hard to debug, this is an expensive time
> sink. Some of these issues are only visible under very specific, rare
> circumstances, much like chasing phantoms. So take every vague report of
> "mysterious" packetloss, or packet reordering at face value and
> immediately dispatch smart people to delve into whether your software or
> hardware makes wrong assumptions based on encountering a 4 or a 6
> somewhere in the frame.
>
you'd think standard testing of traffic through the asic path somewhere
between 'let's design an asic!' and 'here's your board ms customer!' would
have found this sort of thing, no? or does testing only use 1 mac address
ever?
