[43217] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Traffic Shape or Rate Limit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (E.B. Dreger)
Tue Oct 2 15:52:34 2001
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:51:34 +0000 (GMT)
From: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
To: jtk@aharp.is-net.depaul.edu
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3BBA1797.4D0E65F7@depaul.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0110021943340.30294-100000@www.everquick.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:37:59 -0500
> From: John Kristoff <jtk@depaul.edu>
> > Consider also RED variants versus simple tail-drop.
>
> Yes, if you know me that goes without saying, however I know a
(That I do not... still pretty new on NANOG.)
> number of a number of folks, particularly at large ISPs that
> are opposed to RED for one technical reason or another.
I've seen papers/posts for, against, and neutral on, various RED
flavors. Rather than start a flame war or dig up bookmarks, I
decided to bring up the subject and effectively say "STFW". :-)
One probably should mention, too, that there are various queueing
disciplines besides the [seemingly] most ubiquitous RED. Any
others would probably require consideration of hardware used.
Eddy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com>
To: blacklist@brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
