Hey at least it wasn't one of those "x is broken, tell me why" messages. :-)
On the other hand, there was too much detail for most of us to process in
the short time that we allocate to GroupStudy surfing. I can understand
Peter's reaction.
On a related note, I highly recommend Howard's new book, Building Service
Provider Networks. Despite the mention of service providers in the title,
it's extremely helpful for enterprise engineers who are working with ISPs.
It's a terrific companion to his other book, WAN Survival Guide. I haven't
finished reading it yet, but from what I've read so far, I would say it
would definitley help one work out routing policies and other complex issues
related to the enterprise edge and its relationship to the ISP edge.
Here's a link to his new book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471099228/qid=1037223935/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/002-6037512-6952062?v=glance&s=books
Priscilla
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
> To some extent, I agree with both of you. The issue, in part,
> is
> that a large part of setting up real-world Internet connections
> (e.g., address management, prefix filtering and propagation)
> are
> "Best Common Practices" for Internet operations. These are in
> no
> Cisco exam of which I am aware.
>
> Let me make a disclaimer here. I've written several books that
> deal
> with Internet connectivity and operations, and it's a complex
> discipline. The problem that Tunji is describing is really
> outside
> the scope of the NANOG list, under the informal rule there "if
> it
> needs configuration statements, it's out of scope." At the
> same
> time, there are other, more basic "ISP" lists that contain
> incredible
> amounts of noise.
>
> I cannot emphasize strongly enough that knowing every BGP
> command in
> its finest detail will NOT allow you to do anything
> sophisticated in
> Internet routing. You MUST understand routing policy including
> Best
> Current Practices for address management, aggregation,
> multihoming,
> prefix filtering, scalability, etc.
>
> Perhaps it might be appropriate, if Paul has time, to set up an
> internet operations list, oriented toward the enterprise rather
> than
> the provider side. More formal distance learning, which still
> would
> allow studying specific requirements, also is an option, where
> again
> I will make a commercial disclaimer that I am in various
> discussions
> about doing such instruction/consulting.
>
>
> At 1:24 PM +0000 11/13/02, Peter van Oene wrote:
> >Hi Tunji,
> >
> >In the interest of completeness, why not post the other
> message I sent
> >you that recommended some lists where subjects like yours are
> often
> >discussed. I didn't copy the list with either of those
> because they
> >were not relevant for the masses (much like this post :-). I
> sent them
> >to you in the hopes that you might find some answers to your
> questions.
> >In the four or more years I've been on this list, I've watched
> many very
> >specific, very detailed troubleshooting scenarios go
> unanswered simply
> >because they aren't that relevant here and assumed yours would
> follow
> >that same path.
> >
> >Anyway, like you said, I figure I got my point across,
> unwelcome as it
> >was.
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 07:37, Tunji Suleiman wrote:
> >> Ok Peter van Oene, you made your point. I doubt though that
> you voice the
> >> opinion of your quoted 20,000 folks on the site. And since
> we are on the
> >> subject of personal opinions, of which you have given yours
> generously, I
> >> hold that though essentially a Network Engineering
> certifications study
> >> group, there's a greater value to the site in the exchange
> of insights to
> >> real live technical issues. This kind is quite abundant and
> in fact
> >> constitutes a major share of the exchanges between list
> members.
> >>
> >> I also hold that it is wiser to keep personal opinions not
> related to a
> >> poster's issue or suggestions on resolving same to oneself,
> instead of
> >> wasting valuable bandwidth.
> >>
> >> I am not given to subtle undertones, so I will add
> thankfully, that you
> >let
> >> moderators decide what can be discussed.
> >>
> >> Tunji
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >From: Peter van Oene
> >> >To: Tunji Suleiman
> >> >Subject: Re: Routing and Design Problem [7:57193]
> >> >Date: 12 Nov 2002 10:29:06 -0500
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 14:23, Tunji Suleiman wrote:
> >> > > >From: "Peter van Oene"
> >> > > >Reply-To: "Peter van Oene"
> >> > > >To: cisco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > >Subject: Re: Routing and Design Problem [7:57193]
> >> > > >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:12:22 GMT
> >> > > >
> >> > > >sounds like you might want to hire a consultant.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for your suggestion, but I'm trying to play at
> being the
> >> >consultant!
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >I think that point was pretty evident. Mine might have
> had some subtle
> >> >undertones. One of which would be that the list is focused
> on technical
> >> >issues related to certification. Although there can be
> value in
> >> >discussing generalized problems rooted in technology,
> hashing out very
> >> >specific config issues tends to have little value to the
> 20000 folks who
> >> >aren't being paid to solve the problem (which is everyone
> but you in
> > > >this case). Use of the list as a TAC for production
> issues simply
> >> >worsens the signal/noise ratio which is already low.
> >> >
> >> >I should mention that I am not a moderator and simply
> thought I'd voice
> >> >my personal opinion.
> >> >
> >> >Pete
> >>
> >>
> >>
> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> >> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57394&t=57193
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
