> From: Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:07:53 -0400 > > On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100 > >> From: Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> > >> > >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt > >>>> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they? > >> > >> must be some blowhard i have plonked > >> > >>> Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a > >>> handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes > >>> one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by > >>> anyone with a large network running IPv6.) > >> > >> juniper and cisco implement today > > > > Unfortunately, a couple of other router vendors whose top of the line > > units I have tested recently did not. > > Simple Matter of Programming ;-) > > Please suggest to said vendors that they implement this -- IMO it's > the right way to do it...
Rest assured that I did so during the debrief on our evaluation. I know one promised a fix quickly. I don't recall on the other as that problem was not very significant compared to other issues with that unit. These evals are so much fun. I had to listen to a sales type explain that mBGP was incomplete for MY benefit. It might confuse me to be able to run multiple address families over a single peering session. I am so touched for this sort of concern. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
