[100192] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some thoughts on 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Oct 19 12:25:36 2007
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:48:57 EDT."
<20071019154856.GA96694@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:24:44 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1192811084_16054P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:48:57 EDT, Leo Bicknell said:
> In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 11:19:57AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > How much ship date slip for the IPv6 features you need are you willing to
> > accept when 240/4 updates blow the schedule?
>
> Why would the 240/4 updates blow the schedule?
More code, more regression testing, same number of programmers. Do the math.
Take it as a given that it *will* slip the schedule some amount, because
the resources for a 240/4 feature will have to come from somewhere. So
how much slippage are you willing to accept?
--==_Exmh_1192811084_16054P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHGNpMcC3lWbTT17ARAmPOAJ0WetPqDfIjdgZ7yckxbfOa2F0NjwCfagJE
70KOAUe8FNzwQKbQX6SEtLk=
=fRsk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1192811084_16054P--
