Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:04:37 -0400 From: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
I would like to hear it too. However, in fairness to Routescience, did anyone on NANOG previously ask Cisco and Juniper to publicly talk about everything they (sometimes painfully) learned about how to create resilient IS-IS/OSPF/BGP implementations? And even if anyone would ask, are Cisco and Juniper likely to respond (thereby giving a heads up to their competitors)?
I don't think that anyone requested source code, but some things are fair game. What sort of routes does it inject? Does one run WCCP to send traffic to the RS box, which then source-routes it out? I deliberately picked source-routing as an example; many people filter both SSRR and LSRR. Reduced effectiveness, but not a problem yet. However, there are enough boneheads who block all ICMP, meaning that "source route failed" doesn't make it back, that I'm none too keen on anything that source-routes. I don't want packets timing out. See far we've covered: 1. Make the device a border router 2. Snag packets via WCCP and source-route out 3. Inject longer prefixes on a trial-and-error basis 4. I'm too tired to think of other techniques. Don't get me wrong... there are several approaches to the problem. However, avoiding scalability, stability, _and_ interoperability problems is non-trivial.
Routescience may or may not have something worthwhile. However, I would respect their perogative to not say much more on the NANOG mailing list.
Agreed to a certain extent. It's their company, their decision, and private communication (or no communication) to prevent leaking trade secrets... perfectly valid. I don't think that we've reached that point, though. Consider also that it's not difficult for a competitor with tens of millions in R&D to buy a box, sniff packets, and do whatever else is permitted by law. (I have no idea if they have a non-compete clause in a purchase contract, so I might be off base here. Then again, IANAL, and don't want to speculate on contract law and what would hold up.) Anything that is readily observed should, IMHO, be fair game for discussion.
I think the presentation at NANOG would be a great idea, especially if it is a joint presentation with an ISP evaluating the product.
Agreed. Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.