Re: (ASCEND) Inter operability & BACP,DBA,BOD et. al. (fwd)

[MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>]

Once upon a time Matt Holdrege shaped the electrons to say...
>I don't see the problem. We came up with a protocol that works called MP+.
>It's an RFC. The IETF came out with a similar standards track RFC called
>BACP which is in every major product (about 70 routers and TA's) except
>Livingston.

And it is needless overhead since it is hard to have a simple setting that
says "oh, bring up the second channel if the traffic reaches level X".

Yes, I think we should do BACP too.  But I think it is wasteful for most
applications.

And, to be fair, MP+ is an Informational RFC, not a standard.  Anyone can
write an informational RFC.  I could write on to describe the high-water
mark system, but I think that would be silly.

-MZ
--
Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
Phone: 800-458-9966 510-737-2100 FAX: 510-737-2110 megazone@livingston.com
For support requests: support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: (ASCEND) Inter operability & BACP,DBA,BOD et. al. (fwd)
• From: Kevin Smith <kevin@ascend.com>

---

• Prev by Date: (ASCEND) Multi-IP NAT (fwd)
• Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) MAX stacking (fwd)
• Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) MAX stacking (fwd)
• Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Inter operability & BACP,DBA,BOD et. al. (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread