nanog mailing list archives
Re: Mx204 alternative
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:55:25 +0300
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 10:27, Łukasz Bromirski <lukasz () bromirski net> wrote:
64B traffic simply doesn’t happen apart from DDoS scenarios, so why bother at all? Customers anyway want to use dedicated
ACK. And as such, you're not going to get DDoS on all ports at the same time. So you just need to have enough ports on a chip and even very high average packet size, is more than enough. And if you absolutely need 64B on every port, that's easy, just put putty on the remaining ports, boom. The problem is when you rock 1 chip per port and you don't get 64B. But if it's 8, 16, 32 ports per chip, 64B is simply not needed. And like you said, QoS and filters usually have 0 pps cost. Only feature that typically has pps cost is uRPF which is not really needed for anything. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: Mx204 alternative, (continued)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Saku Ytti (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Brandon Martin (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Ross Tajvar (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Raymond Burkholder (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Olivier Benghozi (Sep 02)
- RE: Mx204 alternative adamv0025 (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Saku Ytti (Sep 02)
- RE: Mx204 alternative adamv0025 (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Łukasz Bromirski (Sep 03)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Saku Ytti (Sep 03)
- RE: Mx204 alternative adamv0025 (Sep 03)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Saku Ytti (Sep 03)
- RE: Mx204 alternative adamv0025 (Sep 03)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Nick Hilliard (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- RE: Mx204 alternative adamv0025 (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)