[36619] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: gigabit router (was Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (alex@yuriev.com)
Wed Apr 11 18:05:04 2001
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:40:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: <alex@yuriev.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E563D36AD@newman.tenornet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010411163834.12802T-100000@cathy.uuworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> Vendors have known how to solve this problem for many years.
> Failure to do so is a poor implementation and has nothing to do
> with centralized forwarding being better/worse than distributed
> forwarding.
Yet another person who does not understand the KISS principle. I am
sure in theory it all works great, though I am seeing way too many comments
similiar to:
"The connectivity issues have been resolved. This appears to be the same
CEF related issues we experienced Monday evening, and we have a case open
with Cisco. As we get more information from Cisco, we will be passing it
along."
Alex
