g'day,
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>
> At 10:40 AM -0700 5/30/03, Peter Deutsch wrote:
> >Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> >...
> >Well, perhaps it's more accurate to say "if they thought it could be
> >solved by working with all those nice and entusiastic folks on the IETF
> >general discussion list"... ;-)
>
> We disagree here. For the millions of dollars that they are losing,
> they would come up with the solution with the IETF or not. They
> haven't.
...
> Again, the summary is that these folks are hurting badly enough to
> throw highly-qualified full-time staff on the problem, and they don't
> believe any of the solutions that have been presented so far will
> save them enough money. If they thought differently, they would have
> deployed them by now so that they could save those millions of
> dollars.
Then we're actually in agreement. What I was trying to point out was
these folks are spending money on the problem, but aren't trying to
engineer the solution on the IETF general mailing list (the
implicationbeing that we probably shouldn't be trying to do this
either). And yes, I know I'm one of those who's been guilty of this,
although my motivation was more to change the direction of thought, not
to bake a solution here.
Thanks for what info you provided, although I echo DaveC's request for
whatever additional info you could manage. I think this sort of thing
provides a welcome dose of reality in the debate. Any solution which
requires solutions beyond the costs aren't likely to thrive, whether
that's the cost to an individual or to a major ISP. Having such real
data helps constrain the engineering usefully, to say the least, given
the amount of anecdotal "but I haven't seen that" going on.
- peterd
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch pdeutsch@gydig.com
Gydig Software
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
-- Delo McKown
---------------------------------------------------------------------