[40801] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Routescience?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Wed Aug 22 20:09:24 2001
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@exigengroup.com>
To: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
Cc: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E56CB8171@newman.tenornet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10108221649120.14729-100000@arch.exigengroup.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Kavi, Prabhu wrote:
> I would like to hear it too. However, in fairness to Routescience,
> did anyone on NANOG previously ask Cisco and Juniper to publicly
> talk about everything they (sometimes painfully) learned about
> how to create resilient IS-IS/OSPF/BGP implementations? And even
> if anyone would ask, are Cisco and Juniper likely to respond
> (thereby giving a heads up to their competitors)?
To the credit of Cisco and (later) Juniper IP routing folks, they always
were in a very close touch with ISP backbone engineers. Cisco in
particular publishes quite a lot of technical information.
Which explais why their (and not their competitors) boxes are used to run
the Internet.
> Routescience may or may not have something worthwhile. However,
> I would respect their perogative to not say much more on the
> NANOG mailing list.
Of course.
--vadim
