Subject: RE:[OSPF] ospf-lite welcomes comments

From: "Pat Murphy - (650)329-4044" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:22:08 -0700 (PDT)

OK Matthew I'll bite.

>What is interesting is your response to the price. It was the smae as
>mine. High  prices are not as uncommon within the Enterprise market. How
>many routers does a national high street bank have, or a national store,
>or Gas station etc etc. In my experience in many cases the numbers of
>these networks dwarf the ISP's. Large clouds. 1000 routers will NOT give
>you a national (high street) bank that is for sure.

Back in 1993 I rolled out and facilitated an OSPF routed network as 
complex as any with over 150 OSPF areas (stub, nssa, standard). Then, and 
even now, it had over 2000 routers. It took about 6 months for me and 
about 5 others working part time to complete this implementation. In 1993 
we had other duties to perform, as full time trained network engineering 
professionals were scarce and expensive. The OSPF part at over 90% of 
these sites was a simple cut/paste operation. It took seconds.

It is very hard to get router vendors to retool an application. This is 
after all a business. The implementation priorities of developers returns 
the most income to a vendor when they work on developing new feature that 
attracts new business. I have a number of new ideas myself; but I have 
learned to run them through this litmus test before posting a draft. If 
you really think you have something special, you may be able to publish 
your own implementation in the public domain for folk to try. If it 
generates a strong following then you will have a mass of support behind 
your concept that vendors may take notice of. Without the motivation and 
support of vendors and/or operators it is very difficult to get rfc 
consensus on an idea of this scope. There is nothing wrong with starting a 
project as an academic exercise.

Acee, we would have been happy to do it for $6M and felt rich; but then we 
civil servants work for peanuts compared to you folk.

Pat

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:06:53 EDT

In einer eMail vom 27.09.2007 16:58:46 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

Are you familiar with the work being done in the rtgwg? For  example: 

draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09.txt

Acee,
thank you for your quick response. No, I am not familiar with this  
rtgwg-draft.
Having just read the first "inequality  1 loop-free criterion" and  having 
drawn a chess board network to visualize it, I must say: it is  just not true. 
"<=" would be correct at a first glance. But that is by  far not the limit. I 
can distinguisch between guaranteed loop-free routes,  loop-endangered routes 
which needs a little bit of caution, loop-endangered  routes which needs some 
more intensive care, and I can identify any next hop  which definitively enters 
a dead end.
 
If you look at _www.hummel-research.de_ (http://www.hummel-research.de)  and 
look at my  example network you will see that all links are, by means of my 
algorithm,  converted into arrows which LOOP-FREE direct to the red destination 
node.
It takes some more labor as to safely use arrows from head to  tail. In the 
end the proper relevant routing information could be assigned to  each adjacent 
link, from "best-hop" to "dead end entrance".
 
But I will continue to read this rtgwg-draft.
 
Heiner