It's unbelievable, the amount of e-mail I got from this. The intent was to reduce, not enhance. For those that think this is off-topic to operations I ask, "What is more pertinent to operations than a decision on which implementation of BGP4 to run?" Yes, we are considering Cisco routers. Yes, our ASN was approved by ARIN. Yes, Linux is indeed production ready, as far as we're concerned. But, we're only a VAR, what do we know? Yes, we're a conmmercial site. Yes, we are a GRS-site (Take that up with me in DOMAIN-POLICY). Now, can we get to the point? I suggest that those, who take these things personally, re-read what I have paraphrased herein and let's get past the name-calling. The issue I'm raising is, what to use for BGP4, in production. At 10:00 PM 6/7/98 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
So far, I've had a large number of questions about a statement I made here in NANOG. The statement was made in passing, while I was looking for sources for something that would run BGP4 and allow us to transition from static single-homing to dynamic multi-homing. Rather than answer, yet many more inquiries, I am posting the answer here in NANOG, to fore-stall further such inquiries.
I now have gated v3.5.9, for Linux, and am building it now.
Again, this is not a rant at the gated folks. I frankly wasn't much surprised. I thank all those who helped me obtain the sources for gated-3.5.9.
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!