[41118] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What is the limit? (was RE: multi-homing fixes)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Stuart)
Wed Aug 29 21:58:51 2001
Message-Id: <200108300158.f7U1w3Z98140@hi.tech.org>
From: Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Vadim Antonov <avg@exigengroup.com>,
Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:43:58 +0800."
<E15cGsA-0000Ym-00@roam.psg.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:58:03 -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> >> Sorry, Leo is correct. Technologies he outlined are only the tip of the
> >> ice-berg of what *isn't* being exploited by the router vendors.
> >
> > Your average PC doesn't have to be NEBS-compliant, doesn't have to work
> > more than 24 hours w/o crashing, and doesn't have quite strict constraints
> > on power & heat dissipation. It doesn't have to have redundant power, and
> > its components are readily available and cheap (those are produced in
> > _large_ batches).
>
> i think mo said something like "can we not discuss building global
> infrastructure using home appliances?"
"Technology" is neither NEBS-compliant or not. I don't think the
suggestion is that the toaster-oven or the PC become an integral part
of the infrastucture, but that the vendors are lagging in taking
advantage of technologies that have been widely, and successfully,
deployed elsewhere.
I don't want my router on the absolute bleeding edge of processors and
supporting chipsets and what-not because I want the vendor to have
seen the lessons learned by others in many orders of magnitude greater
numbers of deployments in other devices.
Neither do I want my vendor to lag so far behind that while other
kinds of devices have a cheetah in their case, my router vendor is
still shovelling in hamsters.
Stephen
(Maybe this one will trigger some filters for insensitivity to
hamsters. "crap" and "crud" failed completely.)
