Markus Stenberg <mstenber <at> cisco.com>
2006-12-04 07:28:44 GMT
"David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins <at> isc.org> writes:
> As threatened in the WG meeting, some comments to work on section
> 2.1 of this document, offered in a playful spirit even if my
> writing style doesn't convey that.
Thanks for the comments! I have been fairly busy with random stuff that
actually has deadlines, so I have been shifting through my backlog
gradually. This one I've postponed because I wanted to evaluate your
comments thoroughly :)
Disclaimer: I'm apparently from different background, as I have some idea
about how some big ISPs work, but very, very little idea about what happens
in the cable-land. Therefore, you may have read to my draft something that
wasn't there in the first place.
> In general, I'd like to see this document try and imagine the "best"
> deployment of the described architecture, and then point out flaws
> in it, rather than to imagine all the worst ideas and point out
> just how bad it could get if you really tried.
> I get the idea also that while writing this section, the author
> switched between the idea of, say, perl scripts writing DR
> configuration syntax down an SSH channel, and a routing protocol
> approach. I think in that case you should separate this into two
> different sections (as the first few bulletpoints apply to the
> former but not the latter).
Well, I'm not sure if those two are substantially different. Currently,
there isn't a way of doing it - either within a routing protocol, or
arbitrary configuration-pushing protocol whether it is some super-ugly r/w