Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
Randy, you are on the FreeBSD lists and you see the same where do I go to get an answer to... message that I do when comes out every month. Why not have the same thing for NANOG, but have it be on the FAQ page, or some other NANOG-hosted page if not the FAQ? i think this is a good idea. and i doubt having it also posted to the list once a month would seriously decrease the s:n. but i am not sure this is a bounded problem, and i think cluepon tries to do it, see http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/Main_Page I appreciate that you feel the royal we are most equipped to answer all questions about all manner of things i don't. but piss off is not an answer to much except to other old crusty sobs :) randy ___ 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
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Donald Stahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. 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. -M ___ 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
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
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 03:15:00AM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote: [snip] 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. Large network operators appears no where in the charter (http://www.nanog.org/charter.html) nor AUP (http://www.nanog.org/aup.html). While I agree that questions on much rudimentary things (and vendor-specific for that matter) are better *served* in other fora, they certainly aren't off-target. Being awash in the queries would be a different matter, as they'd be a simple referral to FAQ/wiki. Given the desire for the list and the conference to mirror each other, I'd point out that 'basic' topics are often covered in tutorials and BoFs at the conference. As for jhawk... try finding the last time he was a conference attendee. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ 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
Martin Hannigan wrote: 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. We're all busy individuals, trying to earn that paycheck whilst providing enough value to our employers to keep the stock price up (or whatever). Most of the operators on the list are at places with a help desk, NOC, or both; I'd suspect the rest of the operators have aspirations to be part of the former group. If a question isn't something we'd pick up our INOC-DBA phone to phone a friend, and would be something that would and should come into our respective help desk/NOC, shouldn't it go there? Or maybe the SC/PC has it all wrong, and the answer to improving meeting attendance is to attract that other crowd of network operators: home network operators. Last I heard, there were ~9,000 subscribers to this list. Is it truly prudent of the list to be tech support for all the world? All I'm asking for, and all I'm trying to generate thoughtful discussion about, is boundaries. pt ___ 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
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 06:55:33AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote: Last I heard, there were ~9,000 subscribers to this list. Is it truly prudent of the list to be tech support for all the world? All I'm asking for, and all I'm trying to generate thoughtful discussion about, is boundaries. I understand this sentiment, as I've often felt the same way in other contexts. (And no doubt some of my own inept questions over the years have elicited the same feelings from others.) But I'd like to suggest that whatever that boundary is, we're nowhere near it. The list is not awash in an endless stream of elementary questions, nor is there any sign that it's going to be. In my opinion, it's a theoretical problem that we don't need to expend energy solving until/unless there is convincing evidence that it's going to transition to a real problem. And we have collectively expended more human effort discussing this than was expended in providing the responses. I understand this, or at least I think I do, because I have my own control-freakish tendencies when it comes to running mailing lists. But after decades of doing so, I think I'm finally learning that it's not worth trying to anticipate every possible way things could go wrong and pre-emptively trying to address them. (And it it *does* become a real problem? Maybe nanog-newbies, where people like me who often get lost in esoteric routing discussions can ask our naive questions of an audience that's prepared to address them.) ---Rsk ___ 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
Rich Kulawiec wrote: But I'd like to suggest that whatever that boundary is, we're nowhere near it. The list is not awash in an endless stream of elementary questions, nor is there any sign that it's going to be. Think definition of scope as the boundary, not rate of perceived off-topic messages as the boundary - we've had messages that were far better served by user-oriented (rather than operator-oriented) resources. And we have collectively expended more human effort discussing this than was expended in providing the responses. That's not the point: the point is to define NANOG, something that too many people have brought up, and too many others have shot down. I'm trying to get _some_ definition to it, because I think it's worthwhile. But if it's going to dissolve to a scenario where I get flamed for trying to discuss something (again), I can always go hide under a rock for a while (that's the shut up portion of RS's instructions to me). pt ___ 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
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:59:27AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote: Think definition of scope as the boundary, not rate of perceived off-topic messages as the boundary - we've had messages that were far better served by user-oriented (rather than operator-oriented) resources. Oh, I agree that such messages go by from time to time, but I'm not sure anything more than: read this FAQ check this documents see this web page go ask on this mailing list, wiki, blog, etc. is needed to deal with those. Yes, we might agree that they're off-topic, repetitive, annoying, etc., but -- and I'm not being flip -- so what? Unless they have accompanying negative effects such as mass unsubscription from people who are sick of them I don't see a need to define a boundary (which would presumably leave these on the outside). Many years ago (and sometimes still now) I took the approach that the best way to keep mailing lists and newsgroups focused was to try to enumerate their scope in minute detail. I was counseled at the time that perhaps this wasn't the best approach, because all such attempts are doomed to fail, and when they do, there will inevitably be arguments of the form: But you didn't say [this particular topic] was disallowed! But it is clearly related to [foo] and [bar], don't you see? No, I don't, it's obviously different, you're being arbitrary! the fallout from which is invariably worse than just letting the discussion wind itself through to a natural conclusion and moving on. I have slowly learned (slowly because I'm a stubborn bastard) that maybe that advice was more prescient than I grasped at the time. I'm not suggesting that nanog should let itself become the de facto go-to resource for how do I change the IP address on my Ubuntu box? I'm suggesting that the exercise of trying to exhaustively enumerate everything that's in-scope and not-in-scope is never-ending and very likely to fail, and that it's better to trust that the vast majority of nanog participants are clueful, bright (and sometimes vocal) people who will react en masse when they see a problem that needs solving. But if it's going to dissolve to a scenario where I get flamed for trying to discuss something (again), I can always go hide under a rock for a while (that's the shut up portion of RS's instructions to me). I *am* discussing, not flaming. Yet. ;-) You wanna see flaming, ask me about spam. ;-) ---Rsk ___ 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny thing is that if you read the first sentence in section 3 (Mission) of the NANOG charter, it seems to include that goal. The purpose of NANOG is to provide forums in the North American region for education and the sharing of knowledge for the Internet operations community. P.S. does everyone here still read Internet as global public network or has the popular meaning shifted to American public network? I think some here have been reading it as large network operators. I guess the list is just for the express use of Level 3, Sprint, ATT and Verizon, then. I actually agree with your sentiment. MANOG is a place to learn. I've learned quite a bit in my early days from interaction with the people of NANOG, if not really a whole lot from the mailing lists or the presentations at the conferences. I think the same should continue to be offered going forward. -Sean ___ 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
Since when does the sharing of knowledge for the Internet operations community extend to home user questions? Let's start by refreshing everyone's memory: ls it possible to have 2 default routes? or how can I do the rebundant when the route is still working either eth1 or eth2 down? [[technical details omitted]] i am using freebsd router That is the question. Nowhere does the person say that they are a home user. The technical details that I omitted show that the person has some low-level technical understanding, i.e. mention of ping, diagram of network fragment. It seems to me that this person commits only two crimes. First, English is not their native language, which means that people have to stop and think a bit in order to understand the question. And secondly, this person does not use the status-symbol brand of router that many chest-thumpers on the list use. Therefore this person is an OUTSIDER who must be chased away to preserve the integrity of the tribe. --Michael Dillon ___ 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that this person commits only two crimes. First, English is not their native language, which means that people have to stop and think a bit in order to understand the question. And secondly, this person does not use the status-symbol brand of router that many chest-thumpers on the list use. Therefore this person is an OUTSIDER who must be chased away to preserve the integrity of the tribe. If you can exaggerate (must be chased away to preserve the integrity of the tribe isn't what I'm after, rather moving these two particular questions to another forum), I can extrapolate: MTU on DSL plus two default gateways strongly suggests (to me) home user and not network operator. Not to recommend a site where you have to pay (at least initially), but there are constant (perhaps three per day) postings on Experts Exchange (http://www.experts-exchange.com) on how do I hook my widgets-of-all-flavors to two cable modems for [more speed|redundancy] etc., including how to host servers behind said widget. There are existing resources out there that solve this person's problems, and solve them well. NANOG already has boundaries (spam filtering at the mail server level sounds like an obvious one, but other security topics might be another that's referred to more topical lists/sites), and I think 9,000 list members don't come here to do home user tech support, they come for other reasons. pt ___ 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
Joe Provo wrote: Large network operators appears no where in the charter (http://www.nanog.org/charter.html) nor AUP (http://www.nanog.org/aup.html). While I agree that questions on much rudimentary things (and vendor-specific for that matter) are better *served* in other fora, they certainly aren't off-target. Being awash in the queries would be a different matter, as they'd be a simple referral to FAQ/wiki. My first thought when I read that was, Excuse me?. I almost packed up my toys and went home. And then I realized he was probably just confused with the NALOG list. Ditto what Joe [and Randy] said. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ 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
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:41 PM, David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Fri, 3/21/08, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Exactly. We were all n00bs once, and we all benefited from folks willingness to do things that aren't their job to help us learn. As an MLC member, I read the post and consciously decided not to consider it a problem. I think that gently answering questions and then pointing folks to more relevant places is a good approach. That's an even better idea. I don't know of any newb lists (although I should be on a few :). Where would we point them? Isn't this what cisco networkers is for, for example? -M ___ 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
David Barak wrote: --- On Fri, 3/21/08, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Exactly. We were all n00bs once, and we all benefited from folks willingness to do things that aren't their job to help us learn. As an MLC member, I read the post and consciously decided not to consider it a problem. I think that gently answering questions and then pointing folks to more relevant places is a good approach. We were all n00bs once, but many of you (I consider myself late to the game) were new at this back when the conferences had 100 attendees, and the list probably wasn't a whole lot larger than that. Groupstudy.com, Experts Exchange, vBulletin, none of that existed. Now, the list is 9,000 recipients, and a lot of other topical forums and tools exist. Some folks (I'm one, you're apparently one) say it's OK to redirect folks elsewhere, others say it's not. Can we settle/vote/discuss this for once? pt ___ 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
[ moved to futures ] 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? no. because, due to our diversity (which i think is a good thing), nothing is relevant to the nanog community *at large*. 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. I personally think NANOG has enough noise as it is. then perhaps you should be sending your spankings as private email? randy ___ 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
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
Donald Stahl wrote: 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. Tweak that a bit: I'd say we're discussing whether networking questions on the level of a network operator's customers are on-topic for NANOG. pt ___ 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
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 06:20:08PM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote: 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. The curmudgeonly, sarcastic side of me wants to agree with this. The side that remembers George Goble explaining to me what an inode is as I was struggling to understand research Unix v6 thinks that maybe we should not listen to my curmudgeonly, sarcastic side. (George is also responsible for rsk because he couldn't spell kulawiec reliably.) We don't see many of these questions on NANOG (as opposed to others lists where they're a daily occurence). I think if they're as sporadic as they appear to be, that what we saw today -- a handful of answers including pointers for further readying -- will suffice to answer the question, partially educate someone (maybe even someone who didn't asks the question) and alleviate the need to worry about it. ---Rsk ___ 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
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008, Rich Kulawiec wrote: We don't see many of these questions on NANOG (as opposed to others lists where they're a daily occurence). I think if they're as sporadic as they appear to be, that what we saw today -- a handful of answers including pointers for further readying -- will suffice to answer the question, partially educate someone (maybe even someone who didn't asks the question) and alleviate the need to worry about it. I'd rather see a clueful response here to an occasionally newbie-ish question than the blind leading the blind I see on other lists/forums. (Ever sat down and read the CCNA-topic-related Cisco Netpro forums? Christ.) Adrian ___ 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
(argh,mail list ... grr, wrong address...) On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Christopher Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Adrian Chadd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd rather see a clueful response here to an occasionally newbie-ish question than the blind leading the blind I see on other lists/forums. thanks actually... It's helpful to everyone (or that's the hope, because then the people asking do things 'better' instead of 'redistribute connected' and 'all done!') to educate when we can, I think... Sometimes people get up on the wrong side of the bed, it'd be helpful to just delete the message instead of flame back at it I think. -Chris ___ 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
Michael Smith wrote: how about we all agree to politely sent the new member to http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html when it's obvious they are asking questions that could be better answered elsewhere? i hope all my competitors treat their new customers that way. how about o if it is at all ops related, and you know the answer, answer it o and, iff you have answered it, and know of where better help in the subject area is available, politely point? as one kind soul actually did randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
