Complain to your vendors (was Re: Did your BGP crash today?)
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. :) 2c, Adrian
-----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/
Paul,
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.
Recently I've been involved in some issues such as this working with Alcatel Lucent and Cisco to jointly test how their routing protocols interact with each other. As I think you try to point out, it was like herding cats, pushing jelly up the wall, mowing the lawn with scissors etc. However one of the aspects that came out of this was that it required some changes by service providers. Burgess from the RTG at Cisco has commited to working with me and Alcatel to put together a presentation on this for the NANOG community (hopefully it would be something that the PC would be interested in). I doubt this will be ready for the next meeting but should be for the one after. If we allow vendors just to throw in the towel on these issues then its the service provider community to blame. In my view we have bit by bit step by step ended up in a very dark place. With our entire planet now completely reliant on Internet and Data networks its time for action. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae -- Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG
participants (3)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Neil J. McRae -
Paul Ferguson