North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: it's here
- From: Deepak Jain
- Date: Thu Feb 14 03:43:42 2002
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:52 AM
To: Ron da Silva; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: it's here
Thus spake "Ron da Silva" <email@example.com>
> BOTH linerate filtering and packet inspection should be part of the
> requirements to sell routing hardware. Hmm...so in case any vendor out
> hasn't heard this directly from us, consider this a clarification of our
> requirements. And UUnet's...and ?? any other providers want to make sure
> that the vendor community gets the message here?
The people paying the bill often don't have the same concept of requirements
as the engineers.
Don't get me wrong -- I think you're right and all gear should be capable of
line-rate bi-directional filtering (and forwarding for that matter ;).
However, speaking in general terms, when presented with a box that can and a
box that can't, 90% of customers will end up buying the cheaper one, and
that dictates vendors' development priorities.
This also is related to concept that most vendors [when creating a box that
does and a box that doesn't] don't charge anywhere near in line for the cost
of inputs [hardware, design, software, etc] for the additional feature
[assuming profit is already built into the original price of the box that