Ping flooding (fwd)
Daniel W. McRobb
dwm at ans.net
Wed Jul 10 05:30:19 UTC 1996
> | But please, let us not turn this into "my box is better than your
> | box".
> Why not? I'm sure there are people who would LOVE to see
> people buying up all the NSSes that ANS is throwing away.
> They're *fabulous*.
Folks, that wasn't the point (at least not mine). The point was (from
me anyway) that this kind of data collection can be very useful for
network architecture, and I'd love to have it in all our routers (and I
really couldn't care less who the vendor is; it just so happens we have
a lot of Ciscos so that's just one where I'd like to have it). We've
used the data quite a bit. Blurbs about the NSSes were just
clarifications of what it is we'd like to have elsewhere (there are
several things about the NSS collection of this data that are
less-than-optimal in a world with lots of CIDR and subnetting, if that
gives anyone a warm fuzzy :-)). I don't think ANS is alone here, but if
so, I'll crawl back under my rock. ;-) I know there were folks at ISMA
interested in this kind of data; maybe they've changed their minds.
>From my perspective, it would be nice if we (as ISPs) actually had a
reasonable consensus on what kinds of data we want from our routers that
we can't currently get (whether due to no implementation, troublesome
implementation, or just bad hair days). Just MHO, and possibly well
I'm still curious about field experiences w/ running the flow-switching
stuff on a busy router. Anyone out there doing it? Define busy however
you'd like, as long as you clarify. Private email is fine.
More information about the NANOG