Re: Topicality perceptions

2006-09-25 Thread Michael . Dillon

 One of the biggest issues with the list as I've seen from time to 
 time from my perspective, is the definition of operations. So on a
 quick breakdown of the logical definition of NANOG, I derive 
 Operations of the North American Network. The problem with this 
 stems from far too many bastardizing their own definition of what it
 should be.

Please don't contribute to the bastardization. Section 3 of
the NANOG charter states:

   The purpose of NANOG is to provide forums in the North 
   American region for education and the sharing of knowledge 
   for the Internet operations community. 

You can read the full charter here: http://www.nanog.org/charter.html

By your definition, Cat's recent request for outage
information about Telehouse North would be off-topic.
But according to the NANOG FAQ here:
http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html
outages are on topic. Obviously, network infrastructure
tends to span political borders and geographic borders,
therefore it is not unusual that Cat has an infrastructure
issue in Europe to deal with.

On your first point, the fuzziness and lack of clarity
of what network operations issues belong on this list,
I agree. The FAQ is never posted on the list so it has
become an obscure document hidden away on a little-used
website. It needs to be promoted more and I think it 
needs to be updated to communicate more clearly.

 These are off-topic but I wouldn't trade em for the world. 
 I've learned much from them, as have I from all sorts of posts on 
 topic or not. 

I agree with you. Unfortunately some old-timers 
would rather see a return to the old days when network
ops and engineering was an obscure passtime only understood
by those who knew the secret handshake and were admitted
to the inner circle. They forget that NANOG's major role
has been in educating the new people who have flooded into
the net ops community as the Internet grew and grew and grew.

--Michael Dillon


Re: Topicality perceptions

2006-09-25 Thread Alexander Harrowell


Concur. Nanog has been an on-going education in essentially all
aspects of internetworking, routing, data centres, security,
spam/malware/abuse. Long may it stay that way. I'd argue that the
fuzziness is probably a reflection of the ever-broadening role of
IT/telco/netops people and ideas in current organisations.

Now, someone mentioned issues with SIP. I'd like to flag that this is
going to become a top line operational issue in the next few years,
due to the deployment of following technologies:

1) Carrier/Enterprise VoIP
2) Peer-to-Peer VoIP using SIP (see - Gizmo)
3) Concurrent applications using SIP
4) IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) in mobile networks (and possibly
fixed networks) interworking with each other, PSTN and the public
Internet
5) ETSI TISPAN activity (probably the least important of the five)

Note that 1 through 3 use SIP as defined by IETF whereas 4 and 5 use
the 3GPP/3GPP2/ETSI extensions to it, which may mean they cannot
interwork. Further, IMS and various associated technologies employ DNS
ENUM to map e164 numbers to SIP URIs, not to speak of ordinary DNS to
map URIs to IP addresses.

Some DNS security measures previously discussed on NANOG have the
effect of filtering ENUM replies. There is also the problem that IMS
carriers, as far as anyone knows, are going to operate as private
internetworks and do some form of NAT at the Session Border Controller
(ie - gateway to the public Internet). How they will handle this at
private interconnections with each other is unclear. It is also
unclear how connections between a Carrier SIP client with a
privately assigned or RFC1918 address and a carrier-land URI, and an
open-Internet IETF SIP client with a globally routable address and
its own URI, will work.

It also seems clear that IMS-adopting carriers will continue to
declare themselves as carrier grade, which suggests that the
criticality of their private DNS will be very high.


Re: Topicality perceptions

2006-09-25 Thread William Allen Simpson


J. Oquendo rambled incoherently, saying in relevant part:

William Allen Simpson wrote:

Especially as I'm not aware of any Network Operator worth their salt that
doesn't have regular contact with their support call centers.

Regular contact? As in finding the name of someone who actually has a clue? 

 Not the contact information of some helpdesk goon who doesn't understand
 the output of a traceroute? As in some helpdesk goon who understands what
 an AS is?



You are a Network Operator, and you hired support personnel that doesn't
understand the output of a traceroute and/or what an AS is?

Perhaps the real problem here is some folks have lost sight of what it means
to be a Network Operator?


Topicality perceptions

2006-09-24 Thread J. Oquendo

One of the biggest issues with the list as I've seen from time to time from my 
perspective, is the definition of operations. So on a quick breakdown of the 
logical definition of NANOG, I derive Operations of the North American 
Network. The problem with this stems from far too many bastardizing their own 
definition of what it should be. If I'm experiencing issues on the Network in 
North America, where else should I look for assistance but from a group that 
manages (or at least portrays to manage) operations in North America? I've 
posted quite a few questions here and there, many have said they've made no 
sense. DoS attacks... Mork calling Olson come in Olson... These do affect 
networks... Botnets, worms and viruses... Mork calling... Get the point?

How many posts have we seen on configuring a router that were multi-threaded 
into a long post of my config is better than yours or similar. These are 
off-topic but I wouldn't trade em for the world. I've learned much from them, 
as have I from all sorts of posts on topic or not. I can see where there would 
be annoyance from certain threads, but I see more annoyance from the whiners 
and complainers who spew the same message inserting nothing worth reading and 
for this I have filters in place.

William Allen Simpson wrote:

 Especially as I'm not aware of any Network Operator worth their salt that
 doesn't have regular contact with their support call centers.


Regular contact? As in finding the name of someone who actually has a clue? Not 
the contact information of some helpdesk goon who doesn't understand the output 
of a traceroute? As in some helpdesk goon who understands what an AS is? 

Getting (semi)back on topic, who decides what's on topic or not, it seems to be 
based on one's personal view of what is and isn't relevant.

SNIP
http://www.nanog.org/endsystem.html

The charter of the NANOG list was written to avoid being too specific and to 
not preclude useful network-relevent discussion
/SNIP

Botnets:Relevant
Viruses and worms:  Relevant
DoS attacks:Relevant
Mail/Spam:  Relevant
Router configuration:   Semi-Relevant

If someone's misconfiguration will affect your network, then router 
configurations are somewhat relevant.

I recall having a fiber issue a while back 
(http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0408/0563.html) and although it was not 
relevant to NANOG whatsoever, who else better to ask then the experienced 
engineers and I was thankful for the responses I received. I also recall 
talking about a possible huge DoS against the BGP protocol (which COULD affect 
hundreds) yet the response was... You're off-topic, etc. not including the 
off-list responses I received.

Looking back at some of the threads I see posted here, whenever I tend to see 
something operational that doesn't bode well with someone, I see people quick 
to shoot a you're off-topic response offering nothing more than wasted 
bandwidth. It is those quick to shoot off those responses who give me the 
impression that they're nothing more than lazy whiners incapable of offering 
assistance/solutions/tips/etc.

BGP exploitation? (http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0308/1018.html) was shot 
down and I quote: this is almost certainly not a topic for Nanog. Really? To 
date I have not released plenty of stupid programs capable of wrecking havoc 
because they serve no purpose. My intentions when I posted this was to inform 
others Hey did you know that X could possible break your neighboring... It 
was sent with hopes of working with engineers to find a resolution. I'm sure if 
I shot off a program to the black hat community, I would have been an ass 
since I didn't properly notify the powers that be (whoever these are these 
days).

Perhaps Operations need be dissected, re-defined and re-posted on NANOG.

Laptop policies? http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg01619.html How 
is/was this relevant?

So in other news, has anyone in the south experienced issues with Time Warner 
(South Carolina, Louisiana, etc.) experienced issues with filtering? 
Specifically SIP? I have tons of people with issues regarding VoIP and (not 
suprisingly) they happen to all be related to Time Warner.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
J. Oquendo
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x1383A743

How a man plays the game shows something of his
character - how he loses shows all - Mr. Luckey