--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: In fact, most people making network architectural
: decisions about Internet networks don't participate
: in NANOG any more. Most people making network
: operational decisions also do not participate
: in NANOG anymore. It's not just that many
: people have left NANOG behind, but a lot of
: newcomers to the industry over the past few
: years have not joined NANOG because they don't
: get why it is relevant to them.
<rant>
I just have to add to this. I have worked with quite a few CC{IE, NP, SP, ...}
types lately that've been given lead positions and high responsibilities.
(Hell, some have .sigs that look like the dictionary. They're very good at
passing cert tests.) Many don't want to know about UNIX and Open Source
Software. I don't mean not use it in production, but don't want to know
anything about it at all. They don't want to know how the internals of any of
it works. They want to design by book regurgitation and operate by
point-and-click. They don't think about things organically or as the Big
Picture, rather they have a very narrow point of view. It's a change of
personality type behind this. Do the least amount of work for the most amount
of money. It's not geek-excitement that drives them. It's a crazy world when
CCxx certs are considered more valuable than EE or Comp Sci degrees. :-(
</rant>
Perhaps use more shiny, colorful and less detailed presentations with a lot of
pointy-clicky stuff... >;-)
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Curious question on hop identity...
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:19:14 +0000
> Besides, why do you believe the text in an in-addr.arpa record? Or why
do
> you think the absence of an in-addr.arpa record is meaningful?
Back in the old days, say 10 years ago, you
could run a network by the seat of your pants
using rules of thumb about interpretation of
in-addr.arpa records. And you could be quite
successful at running a network using such techniques
because everybody else was doing pretty much the
same thing. Because of this uniformity, you could make
a lot of intelligent guesses and resolve problems.
However, I think times have changed, there is no
longer uniformity among the people making technical
decisions about Internet networks and many rules
of thumb don't work any more even though they are
still out there in network operator folklore.
In fact, most people making network architectural
decisions about Internet networks don't participate
in NANOG any more. Most people making network operational
decisions also do not participate in NANOG anymore.
It's not just that many people have left NANOG behind,
but a lot of newcomers to the industry over the past
few years have not joined NANOG because they don't
get why it is relevant to them.
Not that I'm complaining about the message quoted above.
It is a great example of the useful information that one
can find in this mailing list. I wish there were more
messages like this one, i.e. people sharing info rather
than complaints and pleas for help.
--Michael Dillon
