--- JJackson@aninetworks.com wrote: nanog list. But I do have to say that when I speak to the designers and such at larger companies and I mention NANOG most of them brush it off and say "The NANOG people are the past and what they have to say doesn't matter anymore". That's the general feel I get from others when it concerns NANOG. ------------------------------------------------ Did they say who they felt 'the present' folks are? scott ps. feel free to move it to nanog-futures if that's a better place for this discussion --- JJackson@aninetworks.com wrote: From: "Joseph Jackson" <JJackson@aninetworks.com> To: <Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com>, <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Curious question on hop identity... Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:10:51 -0800 I'm pretty new to the networking world. While I don't run a huge and complex network in a service provider market. We're just an enterprise network. I have read a lot of useful info about networking from the nanog list. But I do have to say that when I speak to the designers and such at larger companies and I mention NANOG most of them brush it off and say "The NANOG people are the past and what they have to say doesn't matter anymore". That's the general feel I get from others when it concerns NANOG. Joseph -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:19 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Curious question on hop identity...
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