Good intent and somewhat competent

[Paul Ferguson]

Great. Another conspiracy theorist.

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

- paul

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

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