[3415] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ping flooding (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Villamizar)
Wed Jul 10 11:10:48 1996
To: Sean Doran <smd@icp.net>
cc: bilse@EU.net, dwm@ans.net, nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: curtis@ans.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Jul 1996 01:00:58 BST."
<96Jul10.010111+0100_edt.20636+7@chops.icp.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:00:52 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
In message <96Jul10.010111+0100_edt.20636+7@chops.icp.net>, Sean Doran writes:
> | But please, let us not turn this into "my box is better than your
> | box".
>
> Why not? I'm sure there are people who would LOVE to see
> people buying up all the NSSes that ANS is throwing away.
>
> They're *fabulous*.
>
> Sean.
There are some things the NSS did well and the only reason to point
them out is in hopes that the good ideas will be carried into
commercial products and the mistakes won't be repeated. That was one
the purposes of the NSFNET. The experience with the NSS routers and
with gated (and even rcp_routed) has helped shape the direction of
commercial routers to some extent, though I have to admit that their
usefull lifespan is about over (the NSS, not gated).
I don't think this is a "my box is better" argument. If Cisco or
other vendors have met some of the same requirements or even done
better that is good news since the state of commercial routers has to
move forward or we all collapse under the weight of our own growth.
I'm sure this is appropriate for NANOG unless someone goes into detail
covered by NDA.
Curtis
