[120645] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (tvest@eyeconomics.com)
Tue Dec 29 18:42:22 2009
From: tvest@eyeconomics.com
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2zl51ieit.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:41:33 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 29, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely
>>>> require, or
>>>> merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or
>>>> two
>>>> from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain)
>>>> functionality so tightly around what we want/need today that the
>>>> prospect of getting anything different is effectively eliminated.
>>>
>>> this is the telco solution to the nasty disruptive technologies
>>> spawned
>>> by the internet
>>
>> I could be mistaken, but I think Tom's point was "we could give
>> people
>> the ebony black bell phone, that'd really suck for us as a
>> business/community."
>
> sorry, i should have been more clear that i was agreeing with tom.
> replies might not be assumed to be in opposition.
I got that ;-)
Chris is right, but so is Randy.
IMO if the net is ultimately diminished in this manner, either through
commission or omission, eating anything other than our own dog food
would be neither defensible, nor sustainable for long.
The rotary phone was great in its time, but that time has passed --
today there's lot more at stake than handset color.
TV
