[22411] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: What is NANOG used for? (Was Re: Exodus?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Mauritz)
Sun Jan 3 18:42:24 1999
From: Chris Mauritz <chrism@raremedium.com>
To: "'Derek Balling '" <dredd@megacity.org>,
"'Stephen Stuart '"
<stuart@tech.org>
Cc: "'nanog@merit.edu '" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 17:59:22 -0500
Personally, I think it's useful to report outages with any outfit that meets
the nebulous moniker of "Tier 1" provider as it can have far reaching
consequences. While it's still important to contact the affected network's
NOC, I don't see how it's out of line to post a short note about it here.
I'd certainly value that a lot more than the Alistat circle jerkage and I
suspect it wouldn't add a lot of traffic to the list.
Chris
Chris Mauritz
Director, Systems Administration/Network Engineering
Rare Medium, Inc.
chrism@raremedium.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Derek Balling
To: Stephen Stuart
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: 1/3/99 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: What is NANOG used for? (Was Re: Exodus?)
>In the last week, there have been discussions of telco issues (the
>"DACS failure" thread) and tools (the "System And Network Monitoring"
>thread) that seem to have been generally received as on-topic.
But why WAS the System and Network Monitoring thread on-topic? As the
"creator" of that topic, I'd like to think it was, but in reality, all
it
would really "affect" is a single provider. Asking how someone else
monitors their internal network is very similar to asking someone how
they
configure their DNS server.
I'm not saying that you're WRONG. My point here is that we really don't
have any clear-cut guidelines. The old adage about "if I can't program
it
into my router, its not valid" would certainly flunk out the Monitoring
topic, that's for sure, since the main thrust of the request was how to
monitor individual servers (albeit about a thousand of them).
>I'd MUCH prefer two meaningful messages to a dozen complaints from
>people who don't know how to contact a NOC or configure DNS.
Agreed. I'd much prefer low-volume-high-signal to the opposite.
I just think we have a "charter" as it were that is a little too vague,
and
leaves too much up for debate as to what is on/off-topic.
I mean, you can state what you did about what you think is on/off-topic,
and I might agree with you, but the charter is much more vague, and
leads
itself to ambiguity.
I hate rules and regulations as much as the next guy, but I think it
needs
to be spelled out somewhere much more clearly than it already is. That's
all.
My point wasn't to claim that the Exodus topic necessarily WAS on-topic,
but that there's nothing that clearly states it WASN'T. Ya follow?
D
