|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Some thoughts on 240/4
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:08:08 EDT, Leo Bicknell said: > Less code, every patch produced to date /removes/ code. > More regression testing, same number of programmes, ok. > I also believe that's also about 29 more days than most vendors > should need to do the job. The fun is trying to prove you in fact nailed *every* reference. Notice the mention today of an Ubuntu box that had different results for adding a route and binding an IP to an interface. Obviously, it's more than a one-line tweak, it's a one-line tweak in an unknown number of places. Bind a 240/4 address to an interface? Set a route? Set a *default* route? H.323 NAT code that grovels around inside the packets? The list goes on... And of course, you *do* need to regression test - just in case somebody's code does something insane like define an array [0..239] because they "know" that 240..255 Can Never Happen because there's the one-line check - that you just removed. Quite frankly, I'd be leery of running *any* code from a vendor that actually thinks that 30 days is probably 29 too many. Attachment:
pgp00021.pgp
|