Recent posts in the same categories

6 comments:

  1. Sander Steffann 09 August 2017 00:24
    And now for all the purchasing departments: require support of this RFC in your next router to prevent operational accidents. Vendors need customer input/demands to justify implementation.
  2. Unknown 09 August 2017 02:19
    Let's make a list of all the protocols with their ridiculous defaults now. So many!
  3. Vladimir Troitskiy 09 August 2017 07:28
    BGP route leaks are quite popular nowadays...
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-01
    Replies
    1. Ivan Pepelnjak 09 August 2017 07:29
      This seems to be another awesome step in the right direction (yet again, at least a decade too late).
  4. David Barroso 11 August 2017 14:37
    The problem is not having sane defaults or not. Your definition of sane might not be the same as mine. The problem is lack of consistency, which leads to operational mistakes.
    Replies
    1. Ivan Pepelnjak 11 August 2017 20:22
      I guess our definition of "sane" is very similar (although reading various IETF mailing lists one starts to wonder...). The definition of "defaults I want to fit my needs" obviously varies.

      How about rephrasing "sane" as "something that will do the least damage in the hands of clueless people randomly playing google-and-paste game on their edge routers" ;)
Add comment
Home
Sidebar