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)? Routescience may or may not have something worthwhile. However, I would respect their perogative to not say much more on the NANOG mailing list. I think the presentation at NANOG would be a great idea, especially if it is a joint presentation with an ISP evaluating the product. Prabhu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prabhu Kavi Phone: 1-978-264-4900 x125 Director, Adv. Prod. Planning Fax: 1-978-264-0671 Tenor Networks Email: prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com 100 Nagog Park WWW: www.tenornetworks.com Acton, MA 01720
-----Original Message----- From: Andy Dills [mailto:andy@xecu.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 4:01 PM To: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: Re: Routescience?
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Mike Lloyd wrote:
How precisely we've done it, what kinds of controls we offer, how the reporting looks, and ultimately how much it pays off are all things we love to talk about, but I'm not sure this is the forum for brick by brick architectural inspection. We have collected a large amount of data on the relevant networking effects, and come up with analyses of it; some of that might be appropriate at a NANOG meeting, perhaps.
I dunno about the rest of nanog, but I think a technical discussion of how you implement performance-based route selection would beat the hell out of the MAPS debate and Code Red discussion...I think, in fact, after touting your product this much (which was in response, and not unsolicited, thus relevant), you owe it to us to disclose as much as possible.
Plus, I suspect that either you have something really cool (in which case I'd love to hear more of the details), or something that is going to be picked apart by the heavyweights on this list (which would be highly entertaining).
It's a no lose thread. Let's have it.
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Kavi, Prabhu wrote:
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)?
To the credit of Cisco and (later) Juniper IP routing folks, they always were in a very close touch with ISP backbone engineers. Cisco in particular publishes quite a lot of technical information. Which explais why their (and not their competitors) boxes are used to run the Internet.
Routescience may or may not have something worthwhile. However, I would respect their perogative to not say much more on the NANOG mailing list.
Of course. --vadim
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.
participants (3)
-
E.B. Dreger -
Kavi, Prabhu -
Vadim Antonov