> It comes down to "Shit Happens". Developing new features - especially
> something as complex as OSPF - isn't cut and dry. You never know when
> something is going to pop up and delay things. OSPF was completed during
> the PM-3 beta program, and since the PM-3 needed a new ComOS it made since
> to make it part of that ComOS. It also makes sense to be practical and
> let it get into the field and get feedback before unleashing it on the
> rest of the products. If there is a problem (lets hope there is not) then
> it isn't a problem for everything and it can be addressed beforehand. Or
> if a good suggestion for added functionality comes in, it may be rolled in
> before shipping on the other products.
>
> You do things in logical steps and it works much better than a headlong
> rush.
Seems to me the "logical" step would have been to release OSPF to those
that need it most, and not only on your latest and greatest product that
few people have. "OSPF is available for the PM-3<skip>... OSPF is
available for the PM-3<skip>..." Who cares? Does the vast majority of your
customer base that has been begging for OSPF have PM-3's, or 2e's and
2eR's? How does the availability of OSPF for the PM-3 help me, right now?
Not at all.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (510) 943-5769 voice
Systems Administrator (510) 210-2000 modem
Value Net, Inc. (510) 943-1708 fax
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/