RE: New Draft Document: De-boganising New Address Blocks

From: william(at)elan.net ("william)
Date: Wed Feb 25 2004 - 00:31:56 EST


On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Michel Py wrote:

>
> William,
>
> > william(at)elan.net wrote:
> > [http://www.cymru.com/BGP/bogon-rs.html]
> > Unfortunetly this is kind-of a bgp hack and as has
> > been already mentioned it needs very carefull
> > implemention
>
> This is not positive thinking. I don't consider this a hack (if it is,
> then the draft that proposes to re-use ORF mechanisms is even worse).
Quite a bit of difference I think, ORF is almost perfect fit for it.

You seem to think that when I say its a hack it necessarily means its a
very bad thing. Not at all, I use(d) hacks in DoS, Windows, PalmOS, Linux,
etc. all the time. Hacks often lead to real feature in the OS or program
in the future, which is hopefully what will happen here.

> I'm not interested in what things were designed to do, I'm interested in
> what things _can_ do.
>
> I use [Cymru] myself as I am within the applicability domain. I use your
> stuff too. However, you might be borderline to abusing co-author
> privileges here; Team Cymru has lead the route-server project for long,
Nobody is disputing their longterm efforts in this area.

> and although the bogon list is by nature a lot less controversial than
> what you do the bottom line is the acceptance of Cymru's feed is far
> greater than Completewhois.
There is no feed from completewhois to even try to compare at this time.
(you can compare dns feed, but that is slightly different). And when
there is it might different purpose and one might better in one situation
or the other.

> Please don't use draft-py-idr-redisfilter-01.txt as a platform to
> compete with other co-authors; collaborative competition is sound,
> please stay within its borders.
I dont really compete with other authors at all, in fact its not even
easily possible as completewhois does not even provide production BGP feed
at this time. And I don't intend to make this into some kind or race
in the future either - the lists are different and have slightly different
levels of activity they are trying to protect from.

And going OT here, I really do not see a problem with two or more
implementations, we have this at many levels and reality is that it
actually leads to highier degree of innovation. As an example I'm quite
happy that there is both FreeBSD and Linux or both Gnome and K-Desktop.
(although wars between proponents of one of the other can sometimes be a
bit disturbing). Its too bad on the other hand we only have one "Windows".

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks







Hosted Email Solutions

Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD