[145230] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco 7600 PFC3B(XL) and IPv6 packets with fragmentation header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Fri Sep 30 21:48:53 2011
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaYXOuWL6ZzpRef=gAz_WWf5OCRLZtaV1Asb15FgSxW5HA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:48:44 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Christopher Morrow
<morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Dobbins, Roland <rdobbins@arbor.net> wro=
te:
>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>>> this is exactly why punting anything NOT management and/or routing-prot=
ocols should be banned. Thanks for making that point explicitly.
>>
>> And this is the requirement which should be placed in RFPs, along with o=
ther specific requirements for ACL handling, flow telemetry functionality, =
uRPF, et. al.
>>
>> If folks want to influence vendors to do the Right Thing, they have to e=
xpend the time and effort to quantify and qualify said Right Thing(s), and =
then put it into RFP requirements. =A0Otherwise, complaining post-procureme=
nt isn't generally going to accomplish much.
>>
>
> yes, my bitchfest was also a 'could we all start asking for this, now?' .=
.. :)
>
