Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Curtis E. Bemis who wrote (28651)	10/8/1999 3:54:00 PM
From: Mr.Fun	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

You mr. bemis are make a big deal about a semantical point that is essentially irrelevant to an investor. Yes, BGP is a formal standard adminstered by the IETF, invented with the input of many companies. And yes, hundreds, if not thousands of companies have implemented BGP software on networking products. These are undeniable facts. However, the question originally asked had to do with the competitive vulnerability of Juniper (and Cisco) to the myriad of "terabit router" start-ups. My point was, and remains, that the software implementation of BGP in the real world is far more complicated than it appears on paper, and that only three companies of the hundreds that have tried have succeeded in writing BGP software that converges properly in the real (and very complicated) world of the internet. Furthermore, I believe the challenge continues vex well funded would-be Cisco/Juniper/NT competitors. In fact, you make my point very well in the third paragraph of your post where describe the trial by fire when one sticks a new router into an internet. Of course, this cogent observation could get lost amongst the various insults and unfocused ravings contained in the other four paragraphs of your post. Frankly, I don't understand the venom in your response to my admitted cavalier oversimplification in saying "Cisco invented BGP". In a de facto sense, I still would assert that the statement is essentially true, just as it is also probably appropriate to give Cisco credit for MPLS, despite the IETF's role in establishing a standard version. BTW my "rhetorical question about 7500s" is in fact, respectful surprise that Cisco could extend that particular architecture to support OC-12s and Gigabit/sec throughput. It is an awesome accomplishment and no slight to the 7500 which remains a bigger seller than the GSR12000. So in summary: I believe that the spirit of my original post is correct and that your argument about the inner workings of the IETF standards process is a semantic diatribe meant to express your apparent personal dislike for me than any attempt to provide information to the investors that gather in this forum. Furthermore, I believe that anyone who reads these posts in detail would come to the conclusion that we actually agree on the one point that is relevant to investors: Cisco and Juniper's positions as key router vendors are protected by the difficulty in implementing software robust enough to be interoperable with the incumbent vendors in the harsh reality of the internet. Finally, I have no idea what you think my biases are or how my posts on this topic are a particularly galling example therein.

To: Curtis E. Bemis who wrote (28651)	10/8/1999 4:02:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

BGP4 is a mystery to most of these development groups. True the RFCs provide standards for basic functionality. But integration into an existing network is much different than testing at the UNH lab. The most famous casualty of faulty BGP implementation was the GRF, acquired by Ascend, which should have been what Juniper is today. But alas, it turned out a non-entity because it took 5 years to debug BGP. Fun is right that the engineering task is too difficult for most of the other startups.