|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: multi-homing fixes
At 18:23 23/08/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
><quote>
>"Half of the companies that are multihomed should have gotten better service
>from their providers," says Patrik Faltstrom, a Cisco engineer and co-chair
>of the IETF's Applications Area. "ISPs haven't done a good enough job
>explaining to their customers that they don't need to multihome."
></quote>
>
>Is Patrik Faltstrom still an IETF co-chair? Is he still helping the
>[failing] credibility of the IETF? Maybe, that's why? How can any ISP, or
>anyone else, credibly guarantee that they'll still be in business next year?
>Or, that they wont sell out to the very rich bad guys? Or, that circuit
>provisioning will drop to under 5 calendar days? Because, that is the
>*only* way you will convince business customers that they don't need to
>multi-home.
Rather than just bash the IETF (which is easy), it might be
just slightly more productive to wander over, subscribe to the
relevant list(s), and inject some operational perspective and/or clue.
Browsing http://www.ietf.org will yield information on current
draft, WG charters, and how to join any lists of interest.
>At $99US for 512MB of PC133 RAM (the point is, RAM is disgustingly cheap and
>getting cheaper), more RAM in the routers is a quick answer. Router clusters
>are another answer, and faster CPUs are yet another. All of the above,
>should get us by until we get a better router architecture. If the IETF is
>being at all effective, that should start now and finish sometime next year,
>so that we can start the 5-year technology roll-out cycle.
One belief (right or wrong) is the end-to-end path convergence
algorithm in BGP is close to hitting its scaling limits. That's
a problem that infinite RAM could not solve. A proof that the
algorithm is not a danger here would be most welcome in many circles.
If you've got such a proof, please do share.
Ran
[email protected]
|