nanog mailing list archives
Re: IXP
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:39:12 +0100
On 24/04/2009 18:46, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I have looked at the failure modes and the cost of fixing them and decided that it is cheaper and easier to deal with the failure modes than it is to deal with the fix.
Leo, your position is: "worse is better". I happen to agree with this sentiment for a variety of reasons. Stephen Stuart disagrees - for a number of other carefully considered and well-thought-out reasons.
Richard Gabriel's essay on "worse is better" as it applied to Lisp is worth reading in this context. The ideas he presents are relevant well beyond the article's intended scope and are applicable to the shared l2 domain vs PI interconnection argument (within reasonable bounds).
Nick
Current thread:
- Re: IXP, (continued)
- Re: IXP Sean Donelan (Apr 19)
- Re: IXP Stephen Stuart (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Bill Woodcock (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Leo Bicknell (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Adrian Chadd (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Jack Bates (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Mike Leber (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Stephen Stuart (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Leo Bicknell (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Nick Hilliard (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Paul Wall (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Leo Bicknell (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Arnold Nipper (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Jack Bates (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Bill Woodcock (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Sharlon R. Carty (Apr 18)