[100194] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some thoughts on 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Fri Oct 19 13:09:04 2007
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:08:08 -0400
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <2802.1192811084@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:24:44PM -0400, Valdis.Kletn=
ieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > Why would the 240/4 updates blow the schedule?
>=20
> More code, more regression testing, same number of programmers. Do the m=
ath.
Less code, every patch produced to date /removes/ code.
More regression testing, same number of programmes, ok.
> 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?
Ok, I'll accept a month slippage in IPv6 "features". (What are we still
waiting on, anyway?)
I also believe that's also about 29 more days than most vendors
should need to do the job.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
--XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHGOR2Nh6mMG5yMTYRAnJBAJ0W7ch/clep88wEAjV+mpTDzmOMkgCfVe8O
rWL43wXOvTV8bFR7+4NLA6M=
=2URB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l--
