Re: Cisco ASR9902 SNMP polling ... is interesting

[Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Mel-

You have made multiple technical assertions in this thread that are
demonstrably false. Quoting your earlier messages :

   1. Also, non-management interfaces do packet processing in silicon at
   the ASIC level and don’t have the capacity to do anything more than
   statistical sampling of packets that require CPU-level processing to
   retrieve counters and generate SNMP responses. 62 % is as good a sampling
   rate as any other.
   2. Cisco is likely to say that the control plane is only fully supported
   on the management port.
   3. In-band SNMP to data forwarding interfaces violates that separation.


 You have attempted to frame these comments as :

honest and sincere attempts by other members to help identify the possible
> problem.


While your attempts to help may have been honest and sincere attempts to
help the OP, they actually achieved the opposite effect. Your incorrect
technical assertions , if anything, only hindered the OP's attempt to
understand and identify their issue. Comment #1 is especially egregious ;
you're telling Drew that his observations are *normal*.

Saku made 2 comments that addressed these falsehoods :

It might be easier to contribute, if there is familiarity to the subject
> matter.


some community member piled on with what can only

be described as a bizarre drivel.


The first was a polite way of calling out the technical inaccuracies. The
second was a more forceful way of stating "what you said was wrong". Most
people, when they are corrected on a factual point, tend to reply with "Oh
hey, I got that wrong, thanks for setting me straight" and move on. You
seem to have just ignored it.

There is a massive difference between the following statements :

   1. You are an idiot. [ Attacking the person ]
   2. What you said was idiotic. [ Attacking the statements ]

It seems to be that you may be struggling in identifying that difference,
and taking *any* criticism as a personal attack.

Nobody is bullying you, or anybody else, in this conversation.





On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 9:42 AM Mel Beckman via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
wrote:

> Thanks. I knew we were not so out to lunch! If you don’t push back on
> bullies, they take over the community. It crops up on nanog periodically. :(
>
> -mel via cell
>
> > On Aug 4, 2025, at 5:54 AM, Joe Loiacono via NANOG <
> nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > Hi Mel, for what it's worth, I could not figure out what they were
> referring to by Saku's comments. I saw no justification for their
> complaint. A bit out of character for Saku, also,
> > Joe
> >
> > > On 8/2/2025 7:23 PM, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote:
> > > I’ll just let the incivility of you both stand.
> > >
> > > -mel
> > >
> > > On Aug 2, 2025, at 3:52 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Mel-
> > >
> > > Saku did not call *you* any names. He called your *incorrect
> statements* in this thread 'bizzard drivel'. Which he is absolutely correct
> about. While your intentions may certainly have been to help, your
> statements here have been frankly dead wrong and did not accomplish that.
> > > Probably just want to take the L here.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 5:34 PM Mel Beckman via NANOG <
> nanog () lists nanog org<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>> wrote:
> > > Saku,
> > >
> > > What is actually appalling is that a member of NANOG calls “bizarre
> drivel” the honest and sincere attempts by other members to help identify
> the possible problem. There’s no cause to be uncivil, people can disagree
> without stooping to name-calling.
> > >  -mel
> > >
> > > > > On Aug 2, 2025, at 11:46 AM, Saku Ytti via NANOG <
> nanog () lists nanog org<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 at 21:02, Tom Beecher via NANOG
> > > > <nanog () lists nanog org<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't have in depth knowledge of Cisco's SNMP implementations, or
> even
> > > > > the ASR platform specifically, but if Cisco TAC is telling you this is
> > > > > 'normal', they are completely full of shit, and you should click any
> and
> > > > > every 'escalate' button you can find.
> > > > >
> > > > > This almost sounds like a default control plane DDOS policer / LPTS ,
> > > > > something like that.
> > > > There are various complicated reasons for this, LPTS policer is
> > > > unlikely culprit, but possible. Bug search will show various DDTS with
> > > > poor SNMP performance outcome, most of them are unrelated to LPTS.
> > > >
> > > > But absolutely correct, the right solution is to escalate. In common
> > > > case this would be SE from your account team, who would fight for you
> > > > internally.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is appalling that OP came to nanog after correctly suspecting TAC
> > > > is gaslighting them, some community member piled on with what can only
> > > > be described as a bizarre drivel.
> > > > --
> > > >  ++ytti
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/7KXUNRGFI5OEVSDEDU2OL5VMY5NBGQCV/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/CF3QHVTISL6LDFTOWG4E3KK54QEDHUIY/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/OJ7ICXLSPFND32X2XS2U7XIWA6DALSIF/
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/E4CF2TFV35VSJVFEZZANEWOAJFUUNDL4/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/RU6WF77QOECXABP6IDCMVNLAH67X4WNW/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/O32JSSONAPQCALBIECWM5GA4VEZZPUTG/