North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Some thoughts on 240/4

  • From: Eliot Lear
  • Date: Fri Oct 19 13:12:58 2007
  • Authentication-results: ams-dkim-1; [email protected]; dkim=pass (s ig from verified; );
  • Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=718; t=1192813723; x=1193677723; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;; [email protected]; z=From:=20Eliot=20Lear=20<[email protected]> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Some=20thoughts=20on=20240/4 |Sender:=20; bh=5zTYJFlMYS+trs1KNPYvOz7Obi9PbYVDsQ+sKFue1K4=; b=uG1IxaXcE52UK+XqtSLkahcACRpmM3+RcRLih9Obj2Bq1l7+hK2uhi7fh7MtQPgQAvDNtUeZ FVxJpNy7DBgtF/xyO8wqOZQ829iknHEio3U0TW6fEhvFxB+310on+w/4;


> We need to get the code fixed, that is the most important item at
> this time.

This is absolutely true.  The purpose of my note was to provide an
understanding of why we're splitting the process into two by
demonstrating that picking the correct use requires more work.  Each of
the possible uses I described require much more detail  and
understanding.  We can gain that understanding as we're changing our
code since the uses are ALL unicast.

> I would ask everyone on this list to make it a checklist item for your very next vendor meeting.

This always helps.  It would also help if you made your opinions known
to "[email protected]", where this discussion continues.\