North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: NSP ... New Information
- From: bmanning
- Date: Mon Jun 09 11:57:35 1997
- Posted-date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
> >proteon, ibm, cisco, bay, 3com to name a few,
> >and, to my limited understanding, every implementation
> >of an IP stack. Of course if you are willing to slow down
> >everything and commit to a global network that runs at
> >no greater than 64Kb. (and get everyone else to do the same)
> >then you might be able to get by with the next generation of
> One of the newbies (Livingston) has BGP in alpha using < 8MB for a full
> view and a 486 processor without stress. While this won't make a core
> router, it seems to offer something to consider, even learn from.
Livingston has serious problems with its BGP code and
has since it was first available (going on six months now)
Your analogy breaks down pretty quick. Sort of like the
doit yourselfer electrician tinkering with the hoover dam
generators. Heck, its all just volts and amps and what works
at my house will work at the colocation point for millions
of users.... not.
> The original vendor
> does not always produce sacrosanct stuff.
True enough. Feel free to enlighten the rest of us with your code.
I expect that you might even be able to make a buck or two out of
> We just went through the process of acquiring our first significant router;
> one of our main concerns was a router which would allow school districts,
> libraries and hospitals to benefit from Texas HB2128, which offers distance
> insensitive T1s and DS3s and was co-authored by our telecomm lobbyist, W.
> Scott McCollough in Austin.
Woopdedo. I spent 18 years in Texas fighting the same fight.
> I was somewhat dismayed at the memory limitations of current stuff compared
> to what I was hearing about the memory requirements. Jonah has more memory
> on his texas.net usenet news server than you can put on many core routers.
True. Whats your point? Memory is not the answer.
> Is there anyone working on alternative implementations of software which
> could possibly solve some of the problems using extant hardware?
Sure. See the latest from the new router startups and the next round
from the old guard.
> Will IP multicast help with the usenet stuff?
> Do we want to continue seeing cams at universities display the local tower
> while the institution doesn't meet RFC2050 guidelines with respect to
> utilization of their Class B while the rural areas can't get /19s to
> support diversity and redundancy?
If you got your address space pre-RFC2050, do its guidelines
apply to you? I expect that once they come back for more space
that RFC2050 will apply.
> Does Congress need to pass "must carry" legislation similar to the "any
> willing provider" medical legislation? IMHO, it would be better that some
> old dogmas and implementations die and be replaced with efficient, robust
> code and a rather less limiting view of the future.
Sure. As soon as they pass the legislation mandating PI = 3.0
Oh, and we are still waiting on your "efficient, robust code".
T'would be a shame to legislate away a working system w/o your
replacement code in place.
> bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland
Until you kill it off with legal manouvers.