Re: On the record - debunking technical fallacies
Yada Yada Yada - PPLB - Yada Yada Yada. Hey, enough already. Cut it out. Trolls never get full. Listen, by now we all know that PPLB does not behave well with anycast. Those who actually have networks that use PPLB have been warned. Repeatedly. So I am sure they'll be appropriately cautious, and they appreciate all the advice and education and being made aware of the issues, if they didn't already know. While barely real-time operational (I don't recall anyone waving a red flag and saying that their network was broken right now from this), the subject is done. I don't run PPLB in my network. So I don't give a damn beyond being aware that down the road if I have to trouble shoot issues, PPLB will be in the back of my mind. Thanks for that. I don't know how many do run PPLB. And which of them run anycast behind it. I don't care about that either. They run their networks. I run mine. If I want to learn about the intricacies, I'll go look for the appropriate venue or forum. It shouldn't be NANOG. But this incessant noise complete with repetition of the noise is *not* appropriate for the list by any sane definition. If it is now considered appropriate, then NANOG is no longer an operational mailing list, and I'm going to look for - or start - another one. Suggesting the use of procmail recipes to filter the latest reincarnation of the kooks korner is wrong. Life's too short, and I don't have time. As I said earlier this year (about NANOG) in another forum: I have an interest in an organization that can act as a point of attraction for clueful geeks who run networks that carry real traffic that my packets interact with on a constant basis, and where any issue that they have with their networks often affects my ability to make my bits go where they are intended, and vice versa. I don't mind it being populated by clueful geeks from equipment vendors who can contribute to operational discussions by providing information or advice that relates to their products or the operation of networks in general, without smothering me with sales puffery. And who can also take information away from such discussion, and make improvements in their products to help the network I play on better. I want people who actually do things on networks, rather than people who pontificate about what aught to happen on networks. I want people who can practice Gestalt Protocol without bullshit. People who can say In my experience... and actually have some that is relevant. I want people who can say This is what you're seeing, and this is what is causing it, and this is how to fix it, and it does. And I want people who can say It's my responsibility, I'll jump on it and fix it, and who will. I don't know where nanog-futures has gone with deciding on nanog-futures. I hope that the carte blanche that seems to have been granted to everyone with their threads and attacks and pontification has been done in order to show the members how bad it can get. And that it is going to stop. Because if it is not, I'm outta here, after almost 11 years. Some of the stuff on the list over the last 2 months is downright embarrassing to be associated with. It seems to me that while some are here to actually improve the state of the Internet, far too many are here to improve their positions in their own alternative universes, and minds. And that's sad. There, that's my one email for today. Or longer. Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC http://www.centergate.com Technology so advanced, even WE don't understand it(R)
Re: On the record - debunking technical fallacies
On Tue, 3 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it does no good for me to filter out the crackpots if the rest of you are just going to keep on replying to same. so, as RAH had LL say: never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig. I believe it is still necessary (and a good thing) to post messages on the record that debunk technical fallacies. Thats right. That's why I debunk them. The lying children call me names. They really hate it when you debunk their fallacies. Vixie is a screamer, like John Bolton. I'd love to say procmail Vixie, but he has too much control over DNS root servers to ignore him. I did that back in the early 90's. He was a jerk then, and I decided I had better things to do, than work on DNS. But his judgement is so poor (on so many subjects) that he needs close supervision, regardless of how detestable his personal behavior is. Indeed, his detestable behavior over the years is what has caused people not to want to deal with him or his bad judgements. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000
Re: On the record - debunking technical fallacies
--- Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 3 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe it is still necessary (and a good thing) to post messages on the record that debunk technical fallacies. Thats right. That's why I debunk them. The lying children call me names. They really hate it when you debunk their fallacies. sigh I personally evaluate individual posters with the following in mind: the more an individual has been willing to publicly assert things which I know to not be true, the less credit I give that individual's opinions with regard to things about which I am not an expert. The converse is true as well. Dean has weighed in on topics such as router architecture and the ubiquitousness of packet-based-load-balancing in backbone networks, and been thoroughly wrong. Lots of people demonstrated his wrongness in these things, so I feel no need to recap. I have no connection to ISC, and have no personal axe to grind. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: On the record - debunking technical fallacies
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:40:51PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, Jay Ashworth has now set up the Best Practices wiki at http://bestpractices.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page Perhaps that is a better place to have these technical arguments? Thanks for the plug, Michael. Knowing this crowd (and I don't excuse myself, there) as I do, I've even created an obvious mechanism for dealing with the circumstance wherein different people differ on the appropriate approach to a problem or situation; hopefully this will avoid the sort of problems strikethat get everyone mad at me here/strike :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: On the record - debunking technical fallacies
On Tue, 3 May 2005, David Barak wrote: Dean has weighed in on topics such as router architecture and the ubiquitousness of packet-based-load-balancing in backbone networks, and been thoroughly wrong. I never said that PPLB is ubiquitous (widely used--for those not so used to big words). I said that it is possible to see it. And that if you see it, it will not work with anycast TCP DNS. Second, the router architecture issue about whether PPLB was possible on certain routers. It is possible on a great number of routers. But there are some details I missed. Please don't put (wrong) words in my mouth, and then say I'm wrong. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000
Re: On the record - debunking technical fallacies
--- Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 3 May 2005, David Barak wrote: Dean has weighed in on topics such as router architecture and the ubiquitousness of packet-based-load-balancing in backbone networks, and been thoroughly wrong. I never said that PPLB is ubiquitous (widely used--for those not so used to big words). I said that it is possible to see it. And that if you see it, it will not work with anycast TCP DNS. Please forgive my misunderstanding. However, if PPLB is NOT widely used, why would you particularly care about its effects? Avian Carriers are not widely used either, and I don't much care about their effect on RTT... Second, the router architecture issue about whether PPLB was possible on certain routers. It is possible on a great number of routers. But there are some details I missed. Here I disagree: you made statements about the default behavior of Cisco and Juniper routers which reflected an incorrect understanding of the actual workings and deployed configurations of same. My argument that strenuous assertions of incorrect facts weakens credibility holds. Please don't put (wrong) words in my mouth, and then say I'm wrong. I apologize if I misquote or distort in any way, it is certainly not my intent. Any search of my previous postings to NANOG would show that I attempt to be accurate in representing and commenting on others' opinions. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
