Re: Cisco HFR

• To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
• Subject: Re: Cisco HFR
• From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
• Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 23:41:06 -0700
• Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>, Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>, Eric Kuhnke <eric@fnordsystems.com>, nanog@merit.edu
• Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
• Delivered-To: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu
• Delivered-To: nanog@merit.edu
• In-Reply-To: <070599E2-AF3E-11D8-B67F-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se>
• References: <20040526115657.3D34C1AEA2@berkshire.research.att.com> <070599E2-AF3E-11D8-B67F-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se>
• Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu

> Agreed. I am surprised that noone else have brought that up. I
> understand that the software is built in a way that might not make
> sense to port to all Cisco platforms, but it would be nice to have on
> at least the GSRs.
>

I've heard the rumor that that would be the first port that they would
undertake, and that would make some sense.  However, I hope that they
focus their efforts on stabilizing first and porting second.  No point
in porting what isn't stable.

Tony

• Re: Cisco HFR
• From: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>

• Re: Cisco HFR
• From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
• Re: Cisco HFR
• From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>

• Prev: Re: Cisco HFR
• Next: Re: Cisco HFR
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread