[50827] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Sat Aug 10 11:43:03 2002
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:41:52 -0400
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.Nether.net>
To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
Cc: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20020810152044.GL53265@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 11:20:44AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 06:09:05PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
> >
> > If the software MTBF would be better, convergence would not be an issue.
> > As long as it's an operational hazard to run core boxes (with some
> > vendors anyway) with older piece of code than six months, you end up
> > engineering convergence into the networks.
>
> Odd, I think most people would say it's an operational hazard to run code
> newer than 6 months old, or at least with less than 6 months of testing on
> any particular image.
With all the recent software secuirty advisories that affect
many vendors (ssh, snmp, etc..) running anything older than that is
a blatant security risk for anyones network. Not keeping up-to-date
on these items and thinking you're fine is just asking to be
brought down.
> How they're able to completely break so many critically important things
> within 2 weeks between a bugfix code rev is still beyond me. :)
I'm not sure what vendor you are refering to, but i've not seen
any problems like this anytime in the past 6+ months.
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
