a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

Joe Provo nanog-post at rsuc.gweep.net
Thu Feb 16 04:24:36 UTC 2006

On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 06:51:16PM -0800, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> >Stop.  Examine.  Think.  Then respond.

Something about history repeating applies. those who weren't around 
then should re-visit tli's ISPAC proposal from 96 and the associated
discussion on both nanog and cidrd archives before regurgitating it.

Flatly, there are economic pressures to carry deaggregates and they
have undermined/reversed the progress from cidr.   Solve that 
[approaches other than longest-match always wins] or else yes the 
issue will carry to v6.  This is one aspect of the "get ietf to 
re-examine routing" folks at the sessions were on about.   Then we
get back to "the ietf is composed of vendors who want to see your 
capital dollars on a recurring basis" sub-topic...


             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

More information about the NANOG mailing list