To some extent, I agree with both of you. The issue, in part, is that a large part of setting up real-world Internet connections (e.g., address management, prefix filtering and propagation) are "Best Common Practices" for Internet operations. These are in no Cisco exam of which I am aware.
Let me make a disclaimer here. I've written several books that deal with Internet connectivity and operations, and it's a complex discipline. The problem that Tunji is describing is really outside the scope of the NANOG list, under the informal rule there "if it needs configuration statements, it's out of scope." At the same time, there are other, more basic "ISP" lists that contain incredible amounts of noise. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that knowing every BGP command in its finest detail will NOT allow you to do anything sophisticated in Internet routing. You MUST understand routing policy including Best Current Practices for address management, aggregation, multihoming, prefix filtering, scalability, etc. Perhaps it might be appropriate, if Paul has time, to set up an internet operations list, oriented toward the enterprise rather than the provider side. More formal distance learning, which still would allow studying specific requirements, also is an option, where again I will make a commercial disclaimer that I am in various discussions about doing such instruction/consulting. At 1:24 PM +0000 11/13/02, Peter van Oene wrote: >Hi Tunji, > >In the interest of completeness, why not post the other message I sent >you that recommended some lists where subjects like yours are often >discussed. I didn't copy the list with either of those because they >were not relevant for the masses (much like this post :-). I sent them >to you in the hopes that you might find some answers to your questions. >In the four or more years I've been on this list, I've watched many very >specific, very detailed troubleshooting scenarios go unanswered simply >because they aren't that relevant here and assumed yours would follow >that same path. > >Anyway, like you said, I figure I got my point across, unwelcome as it >was. > >Pete > > >On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 07:37, Tunji Suleiman wrote: >> Ok Peter van Oene, you made your point. I doubt though that you voice the >> opinion of your quoted 20,000 folks on the site. And since we are on the >> subject of personal opinions, of which you have given yours generously, I >> hold that though essentially a Network Engineering certifications study >> group, there's a greater value to the site in the exchange of insights to >> real live technical issues. This kind is quite abundant and in fact >> constitutes a major share of the exchanges between list members. >> >> I also hold that it is wiser to keep personal opinions not related to a >> poster's issue or suggestions on resolving same to oneself, instead of >> wasting valuable bandwidth. >> >> I am not given to subtle undertones, so I will add thankfully, that you >let >> moderators decide what can be discussed. >> >> Tunji >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >From: Peter van Oene >> >To: Tunji Suleiman >> >Subject: Re: Routing and Design Problem [7:57193] >> >Date: 12 Nov 2002 10:29:06 -0500 >> > >> >On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 14:23, Tunji Suleiman wrote: >> > > >From: "Peter van Oene" >> > > >Reply-To: "Peter van Oene" >> > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >Subject: Re: Routing and Design Problem [7:57193] >> > > >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:12:22 GMT >> > > > >> > > >sounds like you might want to hire a consultant. >> > > >> > > Thanks for your suggestion, but I'm trying to play at being the >> >consultant! >> > > >> > >> >I think that point was pretty evident. Mine might have had some subtle >> >undertones. One of which would be that the list is focused on technical >> >issues related to certification. Although there can be value in >> >discussing generalized problems rooted in technology, hashing out very >> >specific config issues tends to have little value to the 20000 folks who >> >aren't being paid to solve the problem (which is everyone but you in > > >this case). Use of the list as a TAC for production issues simply >> >worsens the signal/noise ratio which is already low. >> > >> >I should mention that I am not a moderator and simply thought I'd voice >> >my personal opinion. >> > >> >Pete >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. >> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57355&t=57193 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
