[62420] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Worst design decisions?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Lesher)
Thu Sep 18 09:02:03 2003
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu (nanog list)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:57:11 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <3F68E38C.5010504@qwest.net> from "Matt" at Sep 17, 2003 05:43:24 PM
Reply-To: wb8foz@nrk.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> Was doing some upgrades on a UBR7246 (to a VXR), and I got to thinking
> about short sighted design considerations. I was curious if any of you
> had some pet peeves from a design perspective to rant about. I'll start
> with a couple.
1) The slide lock on transceiver cables.
2) Intel's+IBM's "640K" wall.
3) IDE addressing standards. (We've been through the 528 MB,
2.1 GB, 4.2 GB, 8.4 GB caps.... what's next?)
2 & 3 are basically failures to look ahead far enough. We have
lots of those. Some would say IPV4 is one, but I'll give them
a little more credit than most....
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
