On Mon, Aug 25, 1997 at 11:59:46PM -0700, Joe Rhett wrote:
Your idea is to waste CPU cycles to prevent people from reading the manual.
No; they're not readong the manual _anyway_.
I've yet to have anyone explain to me why adding a requirement to tell the router that a given port has other routers behind it, instead of hosts, "won't work in many, many implementations"... by which I assume you mean many networks, rather than many router brands.
You obviously fail to understand corporate networks. Since corporate networks are still 90-9?% of the router business, your requirements for what the 'Net needs are irrelevant.
I'd be interested in the source of that statistic... and I thought the primary focus of NANOG was on networks which _were_ part of the Internet, but then...
Pointers? [ reply... at which point it becamse as apparent to me as it was to the rest of y'all that I was fighting out of my weight ] Real code, real purpose, real function. Not code to prevent people from reading the manual.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592