nanog mailing list archives
Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions
From: "Rubens Kuhl Jr." <rubensk () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:06:22 -0300
This statement is patently false. The uRPF failures I dealt with were based entirely on the recommended settings, and were confirmed by Cisco. Last I heard (2 months ago) the problems remain. Cisco just isn't being honest with you about them.
Would you mind telling us what is the scenario so we can avoid it ? Rubens
Current thread:
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions jim deleskie (Sep 01)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Owen DeLong (Sep 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 03)
- RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions James Jun (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Sep 03)
- Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Anton Kapela (Sep 06)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Christopher Morrow (Sep 06)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Sam Stickland (Sep 07)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Saku Ytti (Sep 08)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Saku Ytti (Sep 11)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Brandon Ewing (Sep 13)
- RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions James Jun (Sep 03)