> Once upon a time patrick@value.net shaped the electrons to say...
> >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
>
> No it wouldn't be.
>
> The PM-3 needed a new ComOS, it was built with OSPF to start. Since it
> had to have a new OS, it got it first.
I D-O-N-T H-A-V-E A P-M-3. I D-O-N-T C-A-R-E A-B-O-U-T W-H-A-T T-H-E P-M-3
N-E-E-D-E-D. M-O-S-T O-F Y-O-U-R C-U-S-T-O-M-E-R-S D-O-N-T H-A-V-E P-M-3-s
E-I-T-H-E-R.
My understanding from your previous comments on the subject, is that OSPF
was developed using the 2e's and 2eR's *first*, yet it is released on your
flagship product before being released on the product that it was
developed on in the first place. Makes a whole lotta sense to me alright.
> Puttting it on something else would have increased risk if there were a
> problem, and would make it more difficult to address for us.
> >2eR's? How does the availability of OSPF for the PM-3 help me, right now?
> >Not at all.
>
> It helps because it is proving the system before widespread service on
> the other products.
That's what beta programs are for. You have already had a beta program
on OSPF, right? And what platforms were the beta programs on? The 2e/eR's
and the PM-3, right?
Personally, rather than sitting here bitching as our networks strains
under the weight of a "historic" routing protocol, I just wish you would
release the damn code so we could all get on to more productive things.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (510) 943-5769 voice
Systems Administrator (510) 210-2000 modem
Value Net, Inc. (510) 943-1708 fax
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/