[100197] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some thoughts on 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Oct 19 13:24:37 2007
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:08:08 EDT."
<20071019170808.GA3112@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:23:17 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1192814597_16054P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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.
--==_Exmh_1192814597_16054P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHGOgFcC3lWbTT17ARAvlHAJ9JQN9OHQtd04nWLN0XAXdOd0pjVACg4eIt
5v3Z/qt0DuQ/mnbTx0jOKSo=
=O8HG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1192814597_16054P--
