Re: autosys to a PS

Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se> Tue, 14 March 1995 17:00 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04740; 14 Mar 95 12:00 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04736; 14 Mar 95 12:00 EST
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08659; 14 Mar 95 12:00 EST
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA48252 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net); Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:46:30 -0500
Message-Id: <199503141646.AA48252@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2); Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:46:30 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:46:30 -0500
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 17:45:00 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 11:21:55 -0500

> Can we not go with as is and then move to a new documnet if enough
> discussion comes out of the Danvers meeting. There are several people
> wanting to reference the document now and asking why the decisions at
> San Jose are not being followed through.
> 		--Tony

Actually there is more to this. 

Something must be wrong, if we have serious problem, like flaps or
aggregation or getting BGP4 deployed, the only thing that hapens is
that we have big discussions on the mailinglists, but no real action
is taken in order to get the real problem solved.

Here we are again, putting out another possible ticking bomb, atleast
I fear real problems down the road with not promoting to use the
proper tools.

I don't say that we shall waste AS-numbers, but as it stands now, we
can't get any at all if we follow that paper to the letter.

--Peter