nanog mailing list archives
Re: Some thoughts on 240/4
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:08:08 -0400
In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:24:44PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
Why would the 240/4 updates blow the schedule?More code, more regression testing, same number of programmers. Do the math.
Less code, every patch produced to date /removes/ code. More regression testing, same number of programmes, ok.
Take it as a given that it *will* slip the schedule some amount, because the resources for a 240/4 feature will have to come from somewhere. So how much slippage are you willing to accept?
Ok, I'll accept a month slippage in IPv6 "features". (What are we still waiting on, anyway?) I also believe that's also about 29 more days than most vendors should need to do the job. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org, www.tmbg.org
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Some thoughts on 240/4 Eliot Lear (Oct 19)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Leo Bicknell (Oct 19)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 19)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Leo Bicknell (Oct 19)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 19)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Leo Bicknell (Oct 19)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 19)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Leo Bicknell (Oct 20)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 19)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Eliot Lear (Oct 19)
- RE: Some thoughts on 240/4 michael.dillon (Oct 19)
- Re: Some thoughts on 240/4 Leo Bicknell (Oct 19)