North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Lazy network operators
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.