[100189] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some thoughts on 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Oct 19 11:23:29 2007
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:00:02 EDT."
<20071019150002.GB91202@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:19:57 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1192807197_16054P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:00:02 EDT, Leo Bicknell said:
> devices have been fixed, or we may find 5%. The problem is we
> neither know the timeframe in which we need it, nor do we know how
> fast vendors can get it fixed.
OK, everybody who thinks 240/4 is a Good Idea:
How much ship date slip for the IPv6 features you need are you willing to
accept when 240/4 updates blow the schedule?
You can have all the IPv6 features you asked for on date X, or you can have
it all plus 240/4 on date <X+N days>. What value of N are you willing to
accept?
--==_Exmh_1192807197_16054P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHGMsdcC3lWbTT17ARAlmCAKD49PA8oYNyGej3EHEJP4UiSjTafwCfd3eN
4izhntkf068sdHrprLIpSrk=
=rIEX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1192807197_16054P--
