[22424] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What is NANOG used for? (Was Re: Exodus?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Sun Jan 3 23:28:36 1999
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 16:11:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> For all the topics that are regarded as being on-topic, there's a common
> aspect: they affect multiple providers. Telco issues. Tool issues. Vendor
> issues. Natural disaster issues. A given provider may have problems in
> their interior that affects lots of users, but that's still a problem
> with a single provider and not necessarily relevant to the list; one
> might consider exceptions like when the host is a root name server, but
> user complaints that they can't reach a web server are not well-received
> because there's an obvious place (a NOC) to go to report the problem to
> people who are paid to do something about it.
another way to look at it:
o is there a problem of sufficient scale that it warrants alerting the
world, as opposed to calling a noc, or posting to one of the lists
specifically for outages? will our noc take significantly more than a
call or two?
o is there a problem with a critical part of the infrastructure such that
we all will be affected adversely? and a root server being simply down
ain't. will our noc take significantly more than a call or two?
o does the message have technical content of general educational value?
i.e. if Rob and crew from Exodus learn something from their alleged
outage from which we all could benefit.
o it's yet another thread telling some user who cant get to some web
site to take their whining to some more appropriate forum. :-)
there has been an interesting discussion on sean's idig list regarding
criteria to warrant formal recording. it is an interesting issue. we
think we know what we mean by a major outage until we try to formally
define it.
randy
