BCP38 is hard; let's go shopping!

joel jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Wed Feb 5 22:02:30 UTC 2014


On 2/5/14, 1:46 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "joel jaeggli" <joelja at bogus.com>
> 
>>> As I've noted, I'm not sure I believe that's true of current generation
>>> gear, and if it *is*, then it should cost manufacturers business.
>>
>> There are boxes that haven't aged out of the network yet where that's an
>> issue, some are more datacenter-centric than others. force10 e1200 was
>> one platform that had this limitation for example.
> 
> So making sure manufacturers are producing gear that's BCP38-compliant,
> and buyers have it on their tick-list, is still a productive goal, too.

it is...  The products are probably close to the end of their sales
life, but they'll likely be around for a while.

> Cheers,
> -- jra
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 308 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140205/f0fa9282/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list