[45738] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: it's here
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Thu Feb 14 03:41:48 2002
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk@cisco.com>,
"Ron da Silva" <ron@aol.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 03:41:00 -0500
Message-ID: <GPEOJKGHAMKFIOMAGMDIEEEMJCAA.deepak@ai.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <016801c1b531$cf968e20$e1876540@ssprunkpc>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Stephen Sprunk
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:52 AM
To: Ron da Silva; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: it's here
Thus spake "Ron da Silva" <ron@aol.net>
> BOTH linerate filtering and packet inspection should be part of the
minimal
> requirements to sell routing hardware. Hmm...so in case any vendor out
there
> hasn't heard this directly from us, consider this a clarification of our
> requirements. And UUnet's...and ?? any other providers want to make sure
> that the vendor community gets the message here?
The people paying the bill often don't have the same concept of requirements
as the engineers.
Don't get me wrong -- I think you're right and all gear should be capable of
line-rate bi-directional filtering (and forwarding for that matter ;).
However, speaking in general terms, when presented with a box that can and a
box that can't, 90% of customers will end up buying the cheaper one, and
that dictates vendors' development priorities.
---
This also is related to concept that most vendors [when creating a box that
does and a box that doesn't] don't charge anywhere near in line for the cost
of inputs [hardware, design, software, etc] for the additional feature
[assuming profit is already built into the original price of the box that
doesn't].
Deepak Jain
AiNET
