DA> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:57:46 -0400 (EDT) DA> From: Dean Anderson DA> But for the record, you misrepresent my SMTP AUTH claims: Someone needs to put down the crackpipe. At least do a Google search or three to find out what I really say before putting words in my mouth. e.g., I specifically cited laws and cases that appear to apply to blacklists... now you claim I stated DNSBLs are exempt? Someone needs to put down the crackpipe. See threads like "ORBS (Re: Scanning)" on NANOG, or "Port 25 Email blocked by ISP" on cobalt-users. You might find major discrepencies between what you claim I say and what I really say. Someone needs to put down the crackpipe. You object to SMTP+AUTH because it isn't standard: http://www.merit.edu/mail/archives/nanog/199-11/msg00263.html http://www.merit.edu/mail/archives/nanog/199-11/msg00289.html You complain that SMTP+AUTH "doesn't scale"... yet viewing open relay logfiles for abusers scales?! Someone needs to put down the crackpipe. Yet you cite RFC1546 as the One True Anycast. Is RFC1546 a standard? What does its first paragraph say, again? DA> You really haven't been paying attention: There's no chance of that at DA> all: It isn't possible to build "vixie-cast" clusters that work around DA> PPLB. There are no topologies which include diverse paths that avoid DA> problems. http://www.merit.edu/mail/archives/nanog/msg07220.html Read what I said. Did I say "vixie-cast" clusters? Did I specify a particular topology, or suggest choosing topologies that work? Even when the thread is is plain sight for all to reference, you fail to cite correctly. Someone needs to put down the crackpipe. You claim PPLB over widely diverging paths will become increasingly common. If that actually happened, guess what would happen to unicast TCP? Guess what would happen to many UDP-based protocols over unicast? If you believe that PPLB problems are "vixiecast"-specific, I have a challenge for you: Connect two routers in series with multiple links. Run PPLB between them, using different latency/jitter/packetloss over each link. Do this for your production traffic. DA> > DA> What can be expected from dumb people? DA> > DA> > Frequent NANOG posting. DA> DA> There are other symptoms. Like being wrong alot, or being completely DA> unable to correctly state someone else's position. You've done a fantastic job of demonstrating both. As much as I'd love to have another protracted flamefest with you, NANOG is hardly the place, and I'm putting more priority on real work. Maybe one day my income will be proportional to how many characters I stuff in NANOG readers' mailboxes, but right now it's based on providing services. If a sane discussion of anycast is on-topic[1], I'll join. Barring that, I'm done posting to this thread. [1] Moderators? Is that operational enough, or too far in the "research" realm? Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.