[44653] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network Operations Luminaries?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Fri Dec 7 00:19:20 2001
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 21:18:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@exigengroup.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200112070501.fB751RjP012670@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10112062111410.13387-100000@arch.exigengroup.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Well, I'd say the network should be able to run itself. Like, just plug
the wire in, and it works. I do not see any _technical_ reason why it
shouldn't be like that.
Now, back to the regular Yet Another Useless Feature Sold To Us By OFRV
discussions :)
--vadim
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 20:40:36 MST, Pete Kruckenberg <pete@kruckenberg.com> said:
> > What would be the network operations equivalents to revered
> > business tomes like "The Practice of Management", "Seven
> > Habits of Highly Successful People", "The G.E. Way" (and a
> > variety of others that populate the shelves of your friendly
> > local executive)?
>
> We still don't know enough about how to actually run a network
> to have luminaries. The occasional bright candle, maybe. Right
> now, most of the suits are still trying to figure out why the
> non-suits think the suits "Just Dont Get It" (the PHB syndrome).
>
> Unfortunately, the Adams brothers (Scott and Douglas) seem to
> have quite a bit of relevance (or more importantly - a large
> percentage of the people working in *your* trenches *think* they
> have relevance).
>
> And both authors share the trait that they tend to be much more
> an entertaining read than anything labeled a 'tome' ;)
>
> /Valdis
>
> P.S. Yes, I know about the incorrect genealogical term 2 paragraphs
> back. ;)
>
>
