North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?

  • From: Alan Hannan
  • Date: Sat Apr 29 13:55:18 1995

  Good God People!  Denninger, Vadim, Tony, could you quit bitching at each 
other? You all have some semi good points but they're lost in your snippity
whiney counter attack back stabbing.  It would make the signal to noise ratio 
much higher on this list if you all would focus on facts, not personal attacks.
I'd like to get something out of this mailing list other than how stupid all 
of you think each other are.

> > >    The equipment available today is designed foolishly --
> > >   route update processing and actual packet processing should NEVER be done by
> > >   the same CPU -- but it is -- and as such you're dead when this happens.
> > > 
> > > Lest anyone believe this, it's bullshit.
> > > 
> > > Karl just buys low end gear and then complains because it's not high
> > > end gear.
> > > 
> > > Tony
> > 
> > >I suppose that a 7000 with a SSP is considered "low end" gear then?
> > >It was *Vadim* who was complaining about CPU usage on your boxes, not me.
> > >Karl Denninger ([email protected])
> > 
> > Would you please refrain from attributing to me the things i did not say?
> > Particularly i never said anything about "actual packet processing
> > by the same CPU" here.
> > 
> > I "complained" (heh i do not _complain_, i simply state the facts) about
> > CPU usage by BGP updates.
> > 
> > --vadim
> 
> That was my point Vadim.
> 
> You were saying that Cisco's "state of the art" equipment was inadequate to
> handle the load you were presenting to it, in that the slightest abnormality
> in the external world made it essentially useless for a period of time.
> 
> My argument is that one of three things must then be true:
> 
> 1)	You are incorrectly using the equipment you purchased.
> 2)	The equipment is not meeting its specifications which you relied on
> 	when you purchased it.
> 3)	The equipment is incapable of handling the load presented by a 
> 	"modern" Internet.
> 
> I have my own beliefs about which is the case, and I'm sure you do too.  Or
> perhaps you were just making an excuse rather than presenting a case?
> 
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger ([email protected])| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
> Modem: [+1 312 248-0900]     | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
> Voice: [+1 312 248-8649]     | 7 POPs online through Chicago, all 28.8
> Fax: [+1 312 248-9865]       | Email to "[email protected]" for more information
> ISDN: Surf at Smokin' Speed  | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net
> 


-- 
[email protected], 	(402) 472-0241 (voice)  Networked Systems Administrator
		(402) 472-0240 (fax)	MIDnet, the United States Oldest
					Regional Internet Service Provider

" They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety 
deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Benjamin Franklin