[88705] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 rides again (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Per Heldal)
Wed Feb 15 15:17:04 2006
From: "Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc>
To: "Edward B. DREGER" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602151650450.31796@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:14:03 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:56:51 +0000 (GMT), "Edward B. DREGER"
<eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net> said:
[snip]
> Per, I'd like to take exception with your "exclude small companies"
> remark. This thread is about tighter engineering and ops involvement,
> so why shoot down those who have the two tightly coupled? Why eschew
> people who work both sides of the fence?
Sorry, the following sentence came out all wrong due to last minute
cutnpaste:
Most nanog'ers, with the exception of those
representing small companies which don't
separate engineering from operations, belong
in the engineering category anyway.
...quite the opposite of what I ment to say. Most nanog'ers work in
engineering. The problem is a lack of ops-people turning these
xOG-groups ito xEG-groups instead.
PS! I prefer tight integration of operations and engineering. I'd say
it's good for engineering-staff to do ops-work from time to time (eat
their own dog food;). Organisations that practise job-rotation generally
have the better solutions.
//per
--
Per Heldal
http://heldal.eml.cc/
