some 6bone backbone cleanup recommendations

[Bob Fink]

Craig,

You make several good points.  I'm not totally convinced about not doing
anything, but it is an option.

I do think that the routing practices draft is a good guide (or will be as
it gets further cleanup/editing).

Let's see what comments we collect.


Thanks,

Bob

===
At 06:23 PM 4/30/98 -0300, Craig Metz wrote:
>In message <Version.32.19980423064622.010add40@cnrmail.lbl.gov>, you write:
>>So... comments and volunteers for bits of the work appreciated.
>
>  I believe that there isn't currently a need for a separate mailing list,
>since the set of people who would be on that list should already be on the
>6Bone list and the all people who are currently on the 6Bone list should be
>interested in operational issues. If the 6Bone has a massive increase in the
>number of leaves and end users, this might change. The MBONE provides a good
>example for us.
>
>  I think that many of the active monitoring methods proposed are either
>overkill or likely to misinterpret certain failures. I have long expressed a
>concern that the volume of diagnostic traffic on the 6Bone is an order of
>magnitude higher than the volume of real usage. More diagnostic traffic is
not
>the answer.
>
>  I really think that the best possible way to clean up the 6Bone is to add
>more leaf/end users. Why? Because most of the problems that get found and
>fixed get found and fixed when somebody is trying to do something but not
>succeeding. If I get a dozen emails a day warning me of possible problems and
>I'm busy, it's going to wait. If one of my co-workers walks down to my office
>and says "hey, can you look at this", it's getting fixed.
>
>  Also, I'd hope that nobody here would consider trying to generate more
>interest in IPv6 and more actual IPv6 users to be a bad thing.
>
>									-Craig
>