[180460] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP in the Washngton Post
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Sheldon)
Wed Jun 3 21:28:20 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:28:10 -0500
From: Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <bHUB1q02F1cZc5601HUEjG>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 6/2/2015 00:27, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Great article for the WP and they asked good questions from
> the correct people, but I have to take issue with the lack
> of network operator's participation comments:
>
> : But getting network operators to participate is proving
> : difficult.
>
> : Many network operators also are cool to taking the further
> : step of adopting a secure new routing protocol called BGPSEC
> : to replace BGP.
>
> : “Unless [network] operators can see that the benefits will
> : generally outweigh the costs, they just won’t deploy it.”
>
> It's more that the managers who have no idea what is going on
> are forcing operators to focus their attention elsewhere, rather
> than the important things until everyone's behind the 8-ball.
> Then, all of the sudden, the mostly clueless managers are all
> about it. But, by then it's too late. Farting in a hurricane
> and hoping it makes a difference... ;-)
Pardon me, (and please forgive me if I am wrong), but I think that from
the viewpoints of the Washington Post, its readers, and probably all of
humanity save the view on this list, the MANAGEMENT of the several ISP
firms and organizations IS "the operators".
Folks out on the operating floor don't really exist.
--
sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
