Hey Rob,
One more meta-comment on this thread: we (as designers) should not expect to be
prescribing exactly how operators will run their systems. Here in the very
early stages we are seeing the early adopters deploy in ways that make _their_
operations easy. imho, this is always going to be
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Rob Austein wrote:
> At Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:33:24 -0400, Danny McPherson wrote:
>>
>> i don't think the rsync scale issues surprise anyone that was paying
>> attention. If we're already considering new architectures,
>> substrates, et al., here perhaps we shouldn't
While I will admit to some astonishment that the following explanation
could possibly be news to long-time participants in this WG (given how
much time I've spent whining about this issue over the last five years
or so both in public and in private), let me quote from the slides:
* How efficie
Hi,
> On 29 Mar 2012, at 12:04, Rob Austein wrote:
>
>> In my opinion the RIRs are currently using
>> rsync badly, given the way they've chosen to set up their
>> repositories.
>
If you provide us with some guidelines on how you believe the
repositories should be organized, who knows, we may
Rob,
I think it is a bit premature to conclude that. Under the same data set
I could conclude that your network, validator and research methodology is
broken. But that is not the point, the point is that we may have a problem,
let's try to solve it and to validate how bad it is.
> At Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:33:24 -0400, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> If you're talking about moving all of the existing SIDR protocols to
> Experimental, that's a cheap shot and you know it.
I didn't say that.
> If you're just talking about RPKI over BitTorrent, the BitTorrent
> experiment was just t
lling here.
--Sandy
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Danny
McPherson [da...@tcb.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:33 PM
To: sidr wg list
Subject: Re: [sidr] Slides for "RPKI Over BitTorrent" presentation
If we're
At Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:33:24 -0400, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> i don't think the rsync scale issues surprise anyone that was paying
> attention. If we're already considering new architectures,
> substrates, et al., here perhaps we shouldn't be so quick on the
> trigger for Standards Track work an
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> i don't think the rsync scale issues surprise anyone that was paying
> attention. If we're already considering new architectures, substrates, et
> al., here perhaps we shouldn't be so quick on the trigger for Standards Track
> work an
i don't think the rsync scale issues surprise anyone that was paying attention.
If we're already considering new architectures, substrates, et al., here
perhaps we shouldn't be so quick on the trigger for Standards Track work and
move this and related "investigation" to the IRTF, or at least e
For those who didn't get to see the end of the "RPKI Over BitTorrent"
presentation in today's SIDR meeting, the full slide deck is available
at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-sidr-9.pdf
and should be relatively self-explanatory.
_
11 matches
Mail list logo
