Hey at least it wasn't one of those "x is broken, tell me why" messages. :-) On the other hand, there was too much detail for most of us to process in the short time that we allocate to GroupStudy surfing. I can understand Peter's reaction.
On a related note, I highly recommend Howard's new book, Building Service Provider Networks. Despite the mention of service providers in the title, it's extremely helpful for enterprise engineers who are working with ISPs. It's a terrific companion to his other book, WAN Survival Guide. I haven't finished reading it yet, but from what I've read so far, I would say it would definitley help one work out routing policies and other complex issues related to the enterprise edge and its relationship to the ISP edge. Here's a link to his new book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471099228/qid=1037223935/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/002-6037512-6952062?v=glance&s=books Priscilla Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > 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=57394&t=57193 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
