Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
On 12/21/05, Albert Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. I lookedaround at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind channels toorganizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the channel to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea?Andrew Kirch wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 william(at)elan.net wrote: I think you're confusing nanog-l with #nanog Actually, looks like #nanog on freenode is already registered as belonging to NANOG: /msg chanserv info #nanog chanserv info #nanog -ChanServ- Channel: #nanog -ChanServ- Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago -ChanServ- Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago -ChanServ- Registered: 2 years 27 weeks 2 days (5h 49m 57s) ago -ChanServ- Topic: North American Network Operators Group -ChanServ- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -ChanServ- Options: Secure, SecureOps -ChanServ- Mode Lock: -s --chip -- Just my $.02, your mileage may vary,batteries not included, etc
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
The channel is unused at this time. -ChanServ- Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago -ChanServ-Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago I checked with freenode staff; they confirmed that it is unused. chip wrote: Actually, looks like #nanog on freenode is already registered as belonging to NANOG: /msg chanserv info #nanog chanserv info #nanog -ChanServ- Channel: #nanog -ChanServ- Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago -ChanServ-Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago -ChanServ- Registered: 2 years 27 weeks 2 days (5h 49m 57s) ago -ChanServ-Topic: North American Network Operators Group -ChanServ-Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -ChanServ- Options: Secure, SecureOps -ChanServ-Mode Lock: -s --chip -- Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc
RE: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. About what? I'm on an IRC and we chat about off topic NANOG posts. Maybe this could chat about off topic IRC off topic NANOG posts? :-) Seriously, I think there is already a #nanog. -M
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:30:18PM -0600, Albert Meyer wrote: I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them: dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in. :-) Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough self discipline to stay mostly on topic. I looked around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind channels to organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the channel to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea? Who cares about organizations when it comes to exchange a few words between operators? Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
Daniel Roesen wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:30:18PM -0600, Albert Meyer wrote: I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them: dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in. :-) Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough self discipline to stay mostly on topic. It looked more like an 3l33t hax0rs channel to me when I visited. Gadi.
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Albert Meyer) writes: I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. ... there are probably several of these, but to remain useful they have to remain somewhat closed. most of you aren't old enough to remember CB radio but the lesson in that for me (in 1975 or so) was, if anybody can talk, everybody will. that having been said, i created [EMAIL PROTECTED] for susan during the recent (LAX) meeting and pretty much nobody used it. one could charitably assume that it's because iChat's jabber support is pretty new and most folks are happy with AIM, but my assumption is that most folks are happy with the chatrooms they're already in, and don't need another one. what this probably means for those of us who aren't in a chatroom we find useful, is that we're just not interesting enough to get invited. anyway, [EMAIL PROTECTED] remains, and it's lonely there. there's no password, invitations aren't required, and the server is open to new account creations if you havn't already got enough jabber accounts. i see that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also open, in similar ways, as is the associated mailing list) is well attended, but full of, um, jabber about all kinds of off-topic CB radio junk. ymmv, but isn't it inevitable? -- Paul Vixie
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:06:02AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote: I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them: dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in. :-) Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough self discipline to stay mostly on topic. It looked more like an 3l33t hax0rs channel to me when I visited. You are certainly talking about a different channel than me. The one I was talking about (and that should have been a private reply, not a reply to the list) isn't named #nanog. Anyway, apologies to stir this discussion, it should have been off-list anyway. :-Z Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
Title: Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down Daniel - it should be public IMO only because you don't want some lesser experienced operators wandering into these IRC brothels and catching something or worse, giving them something...so to speak. I can wander into any chat really and say I'm vaul pixie and make you do bad things potentially, like make you buy a CB and contact me on 'secure' Channel 19 with your name server password so I can 'help'. That's 'bad', yes yes, digital certs, pgp, etc. All that. I wouldn't cry if IRC was deprecated, or archie, or gopher, but..that'll never happen so better to use education as the 'jimmy hat'. -Original Message- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wed Dec 21 21:50:27 2005 To: nanog list Subject: Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:06:02AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote: I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them: dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in. :-) Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough self discipline to stay mostly on topic. It looked more like an 3l33t hax0rs channel to me when I visited. You are certainly talking about a different channel than me. The one I was talking about (and that should have been a private reply, not a reply to the list) isn't named #nanog. Anyway, apologies to stir this discussion, it should have been off-list anyway. :-Z Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
