Martin shockingly writes:
>From: Martin Cooper <mjc@cooper.org.uk>
>To: Danny McPherson <danny@ice.ip.qwest.net>
>CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net, fred@cisco.com
>Subject: Re: SHOCK NEWS: Cisco not RFC-1812 compliant
>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:13:23 +0000
>
> > If anything, the RFC should be updated.. RFCs are at most BCP
> > documents, not law .. it's really not that shocking. Really.
>
>Yes alright, I was being hyperbolic - but even so, I don't think
>the RFC capitalised all the words in the phrase "MUST IMPLEMENT
>OSPF" for no reason - according to RFC form, it seems that it is
>normally only the adverb ("MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY" etc.) that gets
>capitalised - perhaps someone thought that implementing a good IGP
>in production routers was important for some reason. ;-)
>
>It strikes me that Cisco's implementation policy in this case
>had more to do with marketing people looking to screw more cash
>out of customers than a sound engineering reason for not following
>the RFC. Of course, I could be wrong.
Well, did you ever think that, by _not_ putting OSPF onto a small router
platform like the 800, that Cisco would be preventing people like _you_ from
calling their TAC to complain that your "five hundred Cisco 800 Series
routers, all in Area 0, are pegging the CPU every time there's a change in
the network"?
Stay away from the knife drawer, Martin. ;-)
-rb
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:08 EDT