[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

ip-precedence for management traffic

Subject: ip-precedence for management traffic
From: nanog-post at rsuc.gweep.net (Joe Provo)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:55:57 -0500
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <81D582C724CA1046A279A7EE1299638B02AC1A42@FHDP1LUMXCV24.us.one.verizon.com> <[email protected]> <81D582C724CA1046A279A7EE1299638B02AC1A9A@FHDP1LUMXCV24.us.one.verizon.com> <[email protected]>

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:19:32PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
[snip]
> Apparently I forgot the <rant> tag, but really, if you have sane
> CoPP policies, you are mostly protected.  If the vendor does not
> provide this capability, please STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP.

Another fine example of broken fate-sharing when management plane
(executives with purse strings) is strictly segmented from control
plane (engineers and operators).  

-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

References:
- ip-precedence for management traffic
  - From: marcus.sachs at verizon.com (Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc))
- ip-precedence for management traffic
  - From: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco)
- ip-precedence for management traffic
  - From: marcus.sachs at verizon.com (Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc))
- ip-precedence for management traffic
  - From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch)

Prev by Date: ip-precedence for management traffic
Next by Date: Consumer-grade dual-homed connectivity options?
Previous by thread: ip-precedence for management traffic
Next by thread: ip-precedence for management traffic
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread