In my opinion, "real operators" pay careful attention to the basics, such as quality of service, up-time, performance, true "end-to-end" IPv4 transport, etc. The consesus here seems to be that NANOG is a group of hobbyists with no "policy rudder" to steer them in a direction where the O implicitly stands for "Real Operator". The Real Operators that I know have told me that NANOG no longer cares, in other words, it is not like the old days. I guess this is what happens when "operators" can not agree on how to process the first 20 bytes in a packet header, in a consistent manner, without breaking things after the fact. Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> To: John Leong <johnleong@research.bell-labs.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>; Shankar Narayanaswamy (E-mail) <shankar@bell-labs.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Out of band monitoring of equipment
Curious if any operator uses, or have interest in using, out of band network (e.g. modem, wireless etc.) for remote equipment (routers, switches, HVAC etc.) monitoring over and above doing it in band on the Internet.
excuse the double negative, but i doubt that any real operator doesn't
randy