Subject: RE: a problem statement (was: Extending BGP)

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:43:27 -0700

|    > Well said, here here!!!
|    > 
|    > Further, if an SP is going to make the commercial 
|    > decision to support said services, whether or not they
|    > are in BGP or some other protocol, they will still be part
|    > of whatever implementation, sharing the same processor
|    > and memory resources.  Just shifting the deck chairs doesn't
|    > change the amount of wood on the deck.
|    > 
|    
|    But if the SP doesn't want those services and they are separate 
|    processes then they don't have to turn them on. If they 
|    are built into 
|    something else that the SP does want to run then they 
|    probably get the 
|    bugs whether they like it or not.

If the SP doesn't want a service, then the SP shouldn't turn it on.
If the SP didn't turn it on, then the code happily sits behind
an 'if' statement, never to be executed.

Tony

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

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:10:52 -0400

> an 'if' statement, never to be executed.

Yet other stuff is still present in the path that wouldn't be there
if the feature wasn't in the code base at all, even if we
extend your analogy to #ifdef.

But we are on the wrong path.  Next! :-)

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 22:17:35 +0100 (BST)

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Tony Li wrote:

> If the SP doesn't want a service, then the SP shouldn't

...have to pay for it.

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email-masked]>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 22:17:35 +0100 (BST)

...have to pay for it.

L.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:10:52 -0400

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies