On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:02:11AM -0500, Avi Freedman wrote:
>
> Sigh, reminds me of when Sun used to landfill old 3/50s they took in
> trade instead of doing something useful for nonprofits.
>
> This is different, of course.
>
> So Juniper has a "use m5s instead of 7206s" program and Cisco has
> the "Juniper buyback". I guess we all benefit from this somehow?
>
> Anyway, on-topic:
>
> My understanding of the "packet reordering" issue is that Juniper
> claims that it can (not will) only happen if there's only one
> flow going across the whole router. Is this essentially correct?
That's not what I heard, I was told it could happend in corner cases
where 2 flows had common ingress and egress interfaces, one flow only of
small packets, and one only of larger packets.
But the real issue here is, is it really a problem, I'd say not.
Juniper also said they will come out with a solution where the Packet
Director will ensure that all packets in a flow will always go to
the same I/O manager/SFM thus there will be no packet reordering.
/Jesper
-- Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456 Work: Network manager @ AS3292 (Tele Danmark DataNetworks) Private: Geek @ AS2109 (A much smaller network ;-)One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:40 EDT