Re: autosys to a PS

Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se> Tue, 14 March 1995 17:10 UTC

Message-Id: <199503141654.AA38199@interlock.ans.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 17:53:16 MET
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se>
To: Tony Bates <Tony.Bates@mci.net>
Cc: yakov@watson.ibm.com, bmanning@isi.edu, bgp@ans.net
Subject: Re: autosys to a PS
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:44:52 -0500

>  Peter Lothberg <roll@Stupi.SE> writes:
>   * 
>   * 
>   * My question is very simple, what routing protocol do we use between
>   * two administrative domains?
>   *
> Once again we come to the same place. No one is precluding the use of
> BGP for this which I guess is what you are saying. It just talks of
> careful consideration in deciding when you need an AS for external
> routing.

That's the way you interpret the paper. A registry is supposed to be a
registry, not trying to be a virtual ombudsman for the memory
manufacturers.

>   * I can't understand why we are so hot on promoting really bad
>   * engineering in the Internet?
>   *
> Can you elaborate on bad engineering here...if bad engineering means
> people need to think about their routing policy before configuration
> (sort of engineering their network for a change) then I'm for it.

I don't like that we are unable to use BGP as a routing protocol.

--Peter

autosys to a PS yakov
Re: autosys to a PS Peter Lothberg
Re: autosys to a PS Sean Doran
autosys to a PS yakov
autosys to a PS yakov
Re: autosys to a PS Mike Nittmann
Re: autosys to a PS Bill Manning
autosys to a PS yakov
Re: autosys to a PS Scott Brim
Re: autosys to a PS Tony Bates
Re: autosys to a PS Peter Lothberg
Re: autosys to a PS Peter Lothberg
Re: autosys to a PS Tony Bates
Re: autosys to a PS Peter Lothberg
autosys to a PS yakov