From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Thu Aug 19 2004 - 17:32:23 GMT-3
At 4:02 PM -0400 8/19/04, Tim Fletcher wrote:
>At 09:28 AM 8/18/2004, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>>So, the bottom line is that CEF should be less, not more, likely to
>>break things, because it is architecturally clean rather than a
>>kludge.
>
>Agreed. Except the code hasn't been around as long, so is still
>likely to have (more) bugs.
>
>-Tim Fletcher
You can argue that two ways. True, there hasn't been the experience.
But if the fundamental paradigm of CEF is much cleaner than of other
switching modes, the actual code can be simpler. Cache management
for fast/silicon switching is frighteningly complex. That goes away
with CEF.
Also note that software testing is constantly improving its methods,
so a functional replacement may be better tested with the old,
especially if the old has a succession of patches that have grown
scar tissue. There's often a time that it is cleaner, easier, and
cheaper to tear out code -- and sometimes a network -- than keep
trying to "upgrade in place."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:46 GMT-3