Re: Upstream BGP community support

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> > But seriously now, the reason we have these squishy things taking up
> > space between our ears in the first place is so we can come up with  
> > new
> > ideas and better ways to solve our problems.
> and they need not be cute, clever, or complex.  unless we did not get
> enough strokes as a kid.
I think you two are speaking ever so slightly past each other.   
Specifically, you are using the term 'clever' in different ways.

Also, Randy, complexity is not always bad.  More transistors on a chip  
can absolutely make it more complex, but it can be useful if you know  
where to put them and how they interact.  Complexity is not the  
enemy.  Poorly understood complexity, complexity for the sake of  
complexity, complexity with no goal, these are bad.  Saying complexity  
itself is bad is just as silly as adding complexity for no gain.

You want to lower opex.  A fine goal.  Richard claims implementing a  
community-signaling product on his network lowers his opex.  You say  
breaking things in ways that hurt your neighbors is bad.  Richard has  
years of running his network in this way without harming his  
neighbors.  Etc., etc.  It sounds to me like you two agree.  So why  
don't you shake hands and go back to your corners?

Unless you'd rather talk past each other and argue semantics in front  
of 10K+ of your not-so-closest friends?

--
TTFN,
patrick