Good intent and somewhat competent

[Karl Denninger]

Vhen vendors drive BCPs and policies to protect the sale of their own
product which won't live *WITHOUT* those documents, I Don't think this is
off-topic in the least.

There's no conspiracy here -- CISCO and the backbone engineers have AGREED
IN THE PAST that the netwrok wouldn't have survived DUE TO THESE LIMITS
if CIDR wasn't adopted.

That CISCO then went on to produce TWO product lines which incorporated the
same flaw in their design is a fact.

-
--
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
                             | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal

> 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...
> >
>
>