[69547] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lazy network operators
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Wed Apr 14 09:36:31 2004
In-Reply-To: <3693398626.1081944877@[192.168.100.5]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:35:48 -0400
To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Alex,
Are you going to print up some "Nanog Problem Solving Algorithm" T-shirts?
:-)
/John
At 12:14 PM +0100 4/14/04, Alex Bligh wrote:
><metaargument>
>
>Not to pick on you in particular:
>
>This argument (at least on NANOG) seems to be characterized by the following
>
>1. A suggests X, where X is a member of S, being a set of largely well known
> solutions.
>
>2. B1 ... Bn, where n>>1 says X is without value as X does not solve
> the entire problem, each using a different definition of "problem".
>
>3. C1 ... Cn, where n>>1 says X violates a "fundamental principle of
> the internet" (in general without quoting chapter & verse as to
> its definition, or noting that for its entire history, fundamental
> principles, such as they exist, have often been in conflict, for
> instance "end-to-end connectivity", and "taking responsibility for
> ones own network" in the context of (for instance) packets sourced
> from 127.0.0.1 etc.)
>
>4. D1 .. Dn, where n>>1 says X will put an enormous burden on some
> network operators and/or inconvenience users (normally without
> reference to the burden/inconvenience from the problem itself,
> albeit asymmetrically distributed, and normally without reference
> to the extent or otherwise that similar problems have been
> solved in a pragmatic manner before - viz route filtering, bogon
> filtering etc.)
>
>5. E1 .. En, where n>>1 insert irrelevant and ill-argued invective
> thus obscuring any new points in 1..4 above.
>
>6. Goto 1.
