|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:46:04 -0500 (EST) From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> In-Reply-To: <52F2B071.90209@bogus.com> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "joel jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com> > > As I've noted, I'm not sure I believe that's true of current generation > > gear, and if it *is*, then it should cost manufacturers business. > > There are boxes that haven't aged out of the network yet where that's an > issue, some are more datacenter-centric than others. force10 e1200 was > one platform that had this limitation for example. So making sure manufacturers are producing gear that's BCP38-compliant, and buyers have it on their tick-list, is still a productive goal, too. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |