alan(a)globalcenter.NET (Alan Hannan) writes:
> However, for those who have subscribed to nanog for more than 3
> years, nanog has traditionally been useful to discuss operational
> issues, where issue is defined as a concept or problem.
>
> Real time issues are generally helped little by nanog discussions.
I agree 100%. Unfortunately, unlike Alan, I've found nanog discussions
are very good at fixing 'real time issues' and not so good at fixing
long-term operational issues.
Carriers should be the ones who first notify their customers about problems.
In theory, there should be no way I could know and post about a problem
before a carrier monitoring its own facilities. Likewise, reporting a
routing loop problem to a carrier should result in its repair without the
need to post about it on a public mailing list. After all, it affects
them whether reported by a customer or a non-customer.
Most of the reasons why I post problems have their root-causes in some
very old operational problems. Heck, the routing loop Alan mentioned seems
to have been aggravated by a Cisco IOS bug (or at least similar to a bug)
dating back to the days when Alan was still a network tech in Nebraska.
How about this as a long-term operational issue, defined as a concept
or problem: why are we still discussing the same issues three years
later? What makes them so difficult to fix?
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation
