Alex, Are you going to print up some "Nanog Problem Solving Algorithm" T-shirts? :-) /John At 12:14 PM +0100 4/14/04, Alex Bligh wrote:
<metaargument>
Not to pick on you in particular:
This argument (at least on NANOG) seems to be characterized by the following
1. A suggests X, where X is a member of S, being a set of largely well known solutions.
2. B1 ... Bn, where n>>1 says X is without value as X does not solve the entire problem, each using a different definition of "problem".
3. C1 ... Cn, where n>>1 says X violates a "fundamental principle of the internet" (in general without quoting chapter & verse as to its definition, or noting that for its entire history, fundamental principles, such as they exist, have often been in conflict, for instance "end-to-end connectivity", and "taking responsibility for ones own network" in the context of (for instance) packets sourced from 127.0.0.1 etc.)
4. D1 .. Dn, where n>>1 says X will put an enormous burden on some network operators and/or inconvenience users (normally without reference to the burden/inconvenience from the problem itself, albeit asymmetrically distributed, and normally without reference to the extent or otherwise that similar problems have been solved in a pragmatic manner before - viz route filtering, bogon filtering etc.)
5. E1 .. En, where n>>1 insert irrelevant and ill-argued invective thus obscuring any new points in 1..4 above.
6. Goto 1.