GOOD INTENT AND SOMEW

Paul,

I tend to agree but it does bring up one question though.  Why would a
Cisco employee be so interested in this ?  I don't see AT&T, MCI,
Sprint, Bay Networks and others on this list posting comments on their
position, yet many of them sit on the standards bodies.  Is this a
personal thing or a Cisco sponsored thing ?

Jeff Binkley
ASA Network Computing


PF>Great. Another conspiracy theorist.

PF>Karl, may I suggest that you refrain from cisco-bashing and stick to
PF>the issue at hand, which is the discussion of the ARIN proposal and
PF>constructive comments regarding same? Is this too much to ask?

PF>- paul

PF>At 01:30 AM 1/19/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:

PF>>
PF>>Of course, the REASON we have this problem goes back a few years...
PF>were you >on the net then?
PF>>
PF>>Remember the CISCO AGS+?  Used to be the workhorse of the Internet.
PF>>16MB of RAM, 68040 processor.  Not a bad box (We still have some in
PF>service as >interior routing devices).
PF>>
PF>>HOWEVER - its downfall was not just RAM space, but CPU horsepower
PF>and >ARCHITECTURE.  A basic architecture that was replicated not
PF>once, but TWICE >by CISCO since they found out that it was
PF>insufficient (first in the 7000 >series, and then again in the 7500!)
PF>The first replication was bad enough >-- the second, IMHO, is
PF>inexcusable. >
PF>>CIDR was designed and pushed by CISCO engineers.  It was done due to
PF>the >fact that *CISCO DID NOT MAKE A DEVICE AT THE TIME WHICH DID NOT
PF>HAVE >THOSE LIMITATIONS*.  Unfortunately, neither did anyone else!
PF>IF they had, >CISCO likely wouldn't HAVE a backbone business right
PF>now -- and we wouldn't >be stuck with route aggregation concerns.
PF>>
PF>>So here we are in 1996.  Several years later.  CISCO *STILL* doesn't
PF>make a >router with an intelligent architecture which can actually
PF>handle the >offered loads.  And guess who's name is on some of the
PF>more-recent RFCs >regarding address allocations and such?
PF>>
PF>>CISCO employees.
PF>>
PF>>The "why" is left to the reader.
PF>>
PF>>BTW, that monopoly is about to be broken.  Despite the fact that
PF>this >industry has pampered a company that is stuck selling 1970's
PF>technology in >1996 (when IMHO it should have forced them out of the
PF>market or forced them >to adopt solutions which would WORK) it still
PF>is happening -- some people >ARE in fact waking up to the opportunity
PF>that is present despite the >railroading of the standards process.
PF>>
PF>>Of course, we also now have "BCP" documents and business practices
PF>which >IMHO act to restrain trade and possibly violate anti-trust
PF>laws... >

PF>

CMPQwk 1.42 9999