North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Statements against new.net?
How does any of this help me configure my router ? Roeland Meyer wrote: > > From: Scott Francis [mailto:email@example.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:13 PM > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:47:05PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell > > had this to say: > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large > > majority of 1) users, > > > > and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular > > > > segments of the population tend to be. > > > > > > Well, those are the people defining your paycheck, sure you > > want to write > > > them off so quickly? > > > > the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for > > technical expertise - > > Not! They pay for connectivity and for you to meet their expectations. > Operators are NOT programmers. Operators didn't build the system, > programmers did. Operators are hired to simply keep the system running. > Guess who they both work for? ... that's right, Managers whom report to > owners/stockholders, who want you to keep customers happy, so that they make > more money. Your technical expertise is almost incidental to that process. > > > if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make > > informed decisions on this type of matter, why would he need > > to hire a network operator? > > Because they would rather be doing more important things, like make money, > pay mortgages, go on vacation ... It's the reason that AOL stays in > business. > > > I'm not saying that users, clients and management don't have > > their place - > > Wrongo, they don't have a place, they OWN the place! Whatever else they may > be, the customer is always right! You are simply their servent. > > > but I _AM_ saying that place is _not_ in making critical > > _technical_ decisions that will have a significant, > > possibly severely detrimental, effect on the > > future of the networks they have hired _us_ to operate for them. > > I remember such statements, from the IBM priest-hood, in the early 80's. It > was considered beyond arrogant, even then. Tell this to your CEO. They will > humor you and then do what they want anyway. They may, or maynot, keep you > around. But, you will certainly be marked as a typical geek-without-clue > and upward mobility will thereafter be restricted. It's called a > glass-ceiling. Back in the day ... you rarely saw ex-IBM System Operators > higher than middle-management. > > > > You might want to take a long, careful, hard look at who has been doing > > > the sanctioning and how they've been making those decisions before > jumping > > > on the bandwagon. Just a friendly suggestion. > > > > This whole matter boils down to one question - that being, > > what way is the > > Right Way to operate DNS or its equivalent? It seems to me > > (and a few others) > > that, logically, any hierarchical system _must_ have an > > ultimate authority - > > not 2 or 3 or 27, which is essentially what new.net is trying > > to do: create an alternate ultimate authority. How exactly will a user > know > > which site foo.com takes them to, if new.net's response and the rest of > > the Internet's response a la *.root-servers.net don't jibe? The concept of > > > unique and separate > > domains breaks down when you have conflicting responses to > > the question, "Where > > does this domain actually point?" > > > > What some of us are saying is the new.net concept in its current forms is > > _guaranteed_ to create exactly that kind of confusion, all arguments about > > politics or alternate addressing possibilities aside. -- Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com http://www.on-the-i.com http://www.buzzwaves.com