The other problem is how to identify what is appropriate and what is not. It does not seem difficult to find folks on the list who do not agree so it could be tough to appoint the NANOG god that strikes people from the list. Oh well, I guess I'll just keep making good use of my mail filters to catch the garbage. :-) --------------------------------------------- Chad Skidmore Director of Network Engineering Northwest Nexus, Inc. http://www.nwnexus.com 1-888-NWNEXUS
-----Original Message----- From: Eric Kozowski [mailto:eric@haydenisland.verio.net] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 7:59 PM To: Joe Shaw Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: time for a new list?
At 07:01 PM 11/2/98 , Joe Shaw wrote:
I think moderating the group might not be such a bad idea. The only problem with this would be getting someone who had enough
time to actually
moderate the list. I don't know what is going on lately, but it seems egos and animosity are running rampant on both inet-access and nanog. I have been caught up in it myself, and for that I apologize.
i didn't, and don't, propose a moderated list. i propose a list with some sort of subscription requirement, at least for the ability post, that will only allow nano's to post. i also propose that the list be stringently policed. one warning re: content of your postings, then your ability to post is revoked.
i'd like to see a list that lives up to the intent of the nanog list, but w/o all the useless drivel and chatter. if i wanted that, i'd still be subscribed to inet-access.
-- Eric Kozowski eric@haydenisland.verio.net Non carborundum illigitimi
The problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be any real concensus on what is a valid point of discussion on the list. There seems to be some (randy?) that basically feel that if you can't configure a router to do it it doesn't belong here... Meaning that this forum should be primarily about technical operation issues. On the other hand, there are those among us that when the subject of router configuration comes up, usually in the context of the right way(tm) to do BGP configuration, they yell and scream that this doesn't belong here it should be elsewhere. I've personally been flamed for sending a simple "Hey, I can't get a hold of someone at <insert provider here> using whois contact info. Could someone from the provider or someone who has contact information for the provider e-mail me?" So maybe the real question is what the heck is this list for? I've been to two "live" NANOG's and it seems to me that the discussion on this list seems pretty much in line with the "official" nanog agenda. Would someone like to clarify what is and isn't supposed to be on this list before we try to moderate or split it? - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Nov 02, 1998 at 11:57:18PM -0700, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
The problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be any real concensus on what is a valid point of discussion on the list.
For me, outages are a useful topic of discussion. Since I'm not involved in the management of backbones or WAN's, some discussion threads related to that type of issue are not interesting to me. I do take interest in the discussion of routing protocols, since I find a lot of the routing discussions to be educational. But there are many others who disagree with me.
There seems to be some (randy?) that basically feel that if you can't configure a router to do it it doesn't belong here... Meaning that this forum should be primarily about technical operation issues.
Yes. "Operational" is a word used a lot to describe the type of post that belongs here.
On the other hand, there are those among us that when the subject of router configuration comes up, usually in the context of the right way(tm) to do BGP configuration, they yell and scream that this doesn't belong here it should be elsewhere.
Of course, then you hear complaints about people announcing routes they shouldn't be, etc, etc. Well, is there a mailing list for the discussion of the proper way to set up BGP? If not, it could be argued that some of the discussions you mention belong here. -- Steve Sobol [sjsobol@nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support@nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse@nacs.net] Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."
I've personally been flamed for sending a simple "Hey, I can't get a hold of someone at <insert provider here> using whois contact info. Could someone from the provider or someone who has contact information for the provider e-mail me?"
Well, pardon me for pushing YABI, but anyone w/ an ASN could be set up to publish accurate data as follows: dig [ASN].rdi.int. txt or dig 226.rdi.int. txt and then most anyone can get accurate poop (presuming that ISPs will keep up data they maintain on their own systems better than coordinating an update on a centralized server... :) --bill
I think thats a worse bet...
and then most anyone can get accurate poop (presuming that ISPs will keep up data they maintain on their own systems better than coordinating an update on a centralized server... :)
--bill
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
participants (5)
-
alex＠nac.net -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Chad Skidmore -
Forrest W. Christian -
Steven J. Sobol