-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:
Guys/girls/furry-creatures-from-!Earth,
Complaining on nanog-ml is likely to only achieve personal stress relief.
This is something you should bring up with your vendor. Say that you'll move vendors if they don't start making "better" BGP implementations and adding the features you guys want. Make the list of "better" features open, public, and actively solicit alternatives. Follow up on your threat. This is your business bottom line after all.
Don't just use it as a reason to get lower prices from your current vendor and then continue complaining when dumb crap like this occurs.
It would be great if vendor(s) participated in a public interoperability test suite where researchers could test their stuff against it before unleashing it on the public internet. I'd love to see something public -and- cross institutional, -and- include access to things like CRS-level equipment.
Go on, I dare you. :)
Maybe the NANOG conference committee (or whatever its called) could get a couple of major router vendor gerbils to come to the next NANOG and talk to this issue? Maybe? Okay, I give up. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) wj8DBQFMeg7Uq1pz9mNUZTMRAtLzAJwNzJMf4YwjP9C42CFANvESJCVoDQCg9trZ lS5Wd5kpH27JBLKkDhibIOg= =fdTs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawgster(at)gmail.com ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/