Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
> And the MLC didn't bother responding to either (until this). And > probably won't respond further. Of course, my colleagues can say what > they want, but I don't see any reason why someone can't ask for clue > help. If that's the case then might I sugggest changing the pages that discuss what is, and what is not, apropriate for the mailing list? Those questions were not relevant to large network operators but if that is no longer the target of NANOG, then so be it. This was two separate posts on two different days. Will the MLC still feel the same way if NANOG starts to get a dozen posts a day asking basic network questions that are more easily answered with a google search? I've gotten private emails from a number people who don't want to see NANOG become a technical support list- there are better resources for that. If, however, that's not how the MLC feels (which clearly seems to be true) then I'll go my merry way and apologize for wasting your time. -Don ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
> By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the > current content is not a ridiculous waste of time. Rob, The messages in question were posted to NANOG not -futures. The thread was moved here by Randy to avoid further pollution of the main list and to solicit feedback from folks on what is and is not apropriate. The original question was whether basic networking questions not relevant to large network operators were on topic for NANOG. Specifically whether basic questions about MTU on a home DSL connection, or how to add multiple default routes to FreeBSD (both by the same person in separate posts) are sensible topics of conversation for the NANOG list. I apologize if we're wasting your time. -Don > Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> then you are at a loss. we were all younger and less all-knowing once >>> upon a time. the book from which i learned unix was named laura >>> freedman, as there were no printed ones, other than man pages, at the >>> time. if she was as unhelpful as some folk here, i might not be >>> bothering you today. of course, this might be a feature, not a bug. >> This is a terrible analogy but: >> >> Do you walk up to a master carpenter and ask him to teach you everything >> he knows without so much as doing a little research first? Of course not. >> Do you throw together a network without reading a manual and then demand >> that the manufacturer fix things that don't work because you didn't read >> the manual? Of course not. >> >> Both of these questions were easily answered by the simplest of Google >> searches. If you don't ask people to make even a cursory attempt at >> finding the answer for themselves then you are not helping them and you >> are inviting a wholesale loss in content quality. >> >>>>> NANOG is for large network oeprators >>> you're right. that text should be changed, cause it just ain't true any >>> more. in fact, i don't remember when it was true. jhawk was wishing. >> Then I hope it does get changed. >> >>>> Cisco is a commonly used platform and anyone who asks a question about >>>> Cisco is told to go ask on a Cisco list. >>> as did another poster, we generally try to actually answer the question >>> as well as pointing to where there is more domain-specific info. >> This same person asked another question that was easily answered by a bit >> of searching and was far beneath the level I think this list should be >> operating at. >> >>>> If you want NANOG to become the go to list for people who don't >>>> understand basic networking then I will happily go home. >>> i think it's for all of us. >> I've never heard anyone say that about NANOG. This was always a list for >> people discussing issues relevant to large networks. Issues like the size >> of the DFZ and the problems with route churn versus addresses exhaustion. >> If, however, that is no longer how the MLC sees the list then I will shut >> up. >> >>>> Funny- my first response was polite >>> and had zero operational content >> It was my hope that by posting my response to the list we could avoid >> having lots of people answer. Alas that seems to have failed. >> >> If you disagreed with my post it would have been incredibly easy to say "I >> disagree- I think this is a relevant topic and here's some good resources >> for Ann to check out." Instead, your response also included no technical >> content AND was sarcastic. >> >> If I was wrong about what's now considered relevant on the NANOG list then >> I apologize. >> >> -Don >> >> ___ >> Nanog-futures mailing list >> Nanog-futures@nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
> then you are at a loss. we were all younger and less all-knowing once > upon a time. the book from which i learned unix was named laura > freedman, as there were no printed ones, other than man pages, at the > time. if she was as unhelpful as some folk here, i might not be > bothering you today. of course, this might be a feature, not a bug. This is a terrible analogy but: Do you walk up to a master carpenter and ask him to teach you everything he knows without so much as doing a little research first? Of course not. Do you throw together a network without reading a manual and then demand that the manufacturer fix things that don't work because you didn't read the manual? Of course not. Both of these questions were easily answered by the simplest of Google searches. If you don't ask people to make even a cursory attempt at finding the answer for themselves then you are not helping them and you are inviting a wholesale loss in content quality. > >> NANOG is for large network oeprators > you're right. that text should be changed, cause it just ain't true any > more. in fact, i don't remember when it was true. jhawk was wishing. Then I hope it does get changed. >> Cisco is a commonly used platform and anyone who asks a question about >> Cisco is told to go ask on a Cisco list. > as did another poster, we generally try to actually answer the question > as well as pointing to where there is more domain-specific info. This same person asked another question that was easily answered by a bit of searching and was far beneath the level I think this list should be operating at. >> If you want NANOG to become the go to list for people who don't >> understand basic networking then I will happily go home. > i think it's for all of us. I've never heard anyone say that about NANOG. This was always a list for people discussing issues relevant to large networks. Issues like the size of the DFZ and the problems with route churn versus addresses exhaustion. If, however, that is no longer how the MLC sees the list then I will shut up. >> Funny- my first response was polite > and had zero operational content It was my hope that by posting my response to the list we could avoid having lots of people answer. Alas that seems to have failed. If you disagreed with my post it would have been incredibly easy to say "I disagree- I think this is a relevant topic and here's some good resources for Ann to check out." Instead, your response also included no technical content AND was sarcastic. If I was wrong about what's now considered relevant on the NANOG list then I apologize. -Don ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
>> Are you seriously going to sit there and claim that someone asking about >> how to set up 2 default routes on a FreeBSD box is operationally or >> technically relevant to the NANOG community at large? > You honestly, truly believe that "how do I add two default routes to FreeBSD" is a relevant question on this mailing list? You honestly, truly believe that doing technical support for someone who doesn't understand MTU issues and who clearly hasn't bothered to try looking for an answer on Google is a good idea? If you do then I'm at a loss. > no. because, due to our diversity (which i think is a good thing), > nothing is relevant to the nanog community *at large*. NANOG is for large network oeprators- (From the NANOG pages quoting John Hawkinson: "(at least, for North American Networks that are Large, which is what NANOG is for)"). If the focus of this list has changed then perhaps the NANOG folks should update their AUP and descriptive explanations of what relevant. > in this case it was a routing question about a commonly used platform. > and one which is generalizable to other platforms. if this does not > belong on nanog, we should all go home. Cisco is a commonly used platform and anyone who asks a question about Cisco is told to go ask on a Cisco list. This person was asking a basic question about two default routes that anyone dealing with the sort of networks NANOG folks deal with should not need to ask. And do you really think their MTU question had any place on this list? There was nothing about this persons question that was relevant to large network operators. If you want NANOG to become the go to list for people who don't understand basic networking then I will happily go home. > then perhaps you should be sending your spankings as private email? Funny- my first response was polite, and suggested that this was the wrong forum and that they should ask the FreeBSD folks. You're subsequent snide remarks were the first "public spanking." Perhaps you should have sent those privately. -Don ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
