I've been a lurker on the list for a good long while now, and recently I
have become pretty active. I think a lot of the pro's post, and the
problem isn't that the people are banished to newbie.dev.nul (I like
that by the way.), but that the people that originally asked the
question endlessly debate the advice that gets posted by people that
really know what they're talking about. This causes a great deal of
frustration, and it's how the endless loops in threads end up happening
I've noticed that alot of the advise given is appropriate for
larger, i.e. tier 1, setups but isn't necessarily as useful
for tier 2/3/N+1.
Things that work great in large scale might be unweildy or not
even feasable on a smaller scale and vice-versa.
North American Network Operators aren't necessarily just tier 1's...
This might be one of the causes of "energetic" discussion when one tier
answers what makes sense for its scale but another tier is puzzled why
anyone would ever consider such an approach.
To avoid confusion in the future it might be helpful for both
questioner's and answerers to mention what scale their addressing
in the question/answer.
Just a suggestion,
-Rob
I would go along with that. Not to create a 'loop' here. But if you think about what you said, you can be correct, but still not be able to change the behavior, nor should we try.
A newbie or someone that might not 'know' the resume of the replier, does a post on something of great importance to him. He is unsure of the solution himself, and receives a wonderful response from a veteran on the list. Let's be honest here, most of the pros will post a very brief but curt reply. They dont have time to waste but want to be helpful. The newbie not knowing the backround of a Sean or a Manning, will question the brief advice since it is their router (etc) they are about to type COMMIT into. That makes the Pro feel like his advice was unheeded.
In reality, it comes across as arrogant for us to expect the newbie not to question the advice. I am not saying it IS in fact arrogant but it does come across that way. And the newbie may in fact simply be playing devil's advocate back. I always learn from the threads I have time to read through, someone might have a better way of explaining something as simple as BGP.
I also learn from each time in front of a white board, explaining the same thing I might have done 100 times. And yes Mr. Norton, I am learning to s-p-e-a-k s-l-o-w-e-r.
FYI the only recent waste of mail space was the thread on that poor engineers signature. I am not sure how that really needed a thread. That was about as unforgiving a response Ive seen since someone wore a tie to nanog!
David
in my experience, and measuring by the contect of my .procmailrc,
newbies are not the s:n problem
randy
I've noticed that alot of the advise given is appropriate for
larger, i.e. tier 1, setups but isn't necessarily as useful
for tier 2/3/N+1.
Things that work great in large scale might be unweildy or not
even feasable on a smaller scale and vice-versa.
...
To avoid confusion in the future it might be helpful for both
questioner's and answerers to mention what scale their addressing
in the question/answer.
I'm not so sure about that. It's kind of like the old adage... "if you
have to ask how much it costs, it's too expensive for you."
I love reading the peering papers from William Norton...but I also
recognize that for my network, transit is always going to be more
economical.
IMO, it's pretty evident when advice applies to large networks and when it
applies to small networks. How many small networks do you know of that,
for example, verify routes announced by peers with the IRR? Few if any,
because they don't have any peers big enough for that to be the solution.
You simply use ACLs.
Besides, small networks have small problems. There aren't many
unanswerable questions pertaining to the best practice for operating a
small network...but a big network? Different story.
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
Personally, every time I post, it's from a Tier-2 perspective. This,
honestly, changes absolutely nothing about how I build my network from a
logical perspective. There are some minor differences, I.E. I don't own
my own fiber, and I don't have many peering relationships. I use
transit/transport the same as many other Tier-2's. But the best
practices of a Tier-1 are the best practices of any other ISP
regardless. Reinventing the wheel is, IMHO, a very bad thing. Over 90%
of networking mistakes have already been made, and really, that's what
NANOG is for. How many of you out there wish you had done some things
different when you look back after rolling out a network? I think people
should keep in mind that one of the hardest parts of network design
isn't making it work, but making it scale properly. And generally,
that's the advice the newer people tend to ignore. Sure other ways will
*work*, but they generally won't scale. And the whole point of an ISP is
to grow, right?
Derek
The whole point of an ISP is to make money. Let's not forget that.
Growing has ruined many a fine network.
The best practices of a Tier-1 (such a useless term) are NOT neccessarily
the best practices for all networks.
For instance, a few years ago, I had to bitch at UUnet for three weeks to
get them to configure per-packet CEF facing me (3 DS1s). Their first
reaction was "No, we don't run proprietary protocols on our network." When
I pointed out that I knew for a fact that they were already using CEF
switching, cisco-proprietary or not, they finally agreed to try it out
as a special circumstance, if it breaks, tough shit. Worked flawlessly
for us till we migrated to the DS3 level.
Now, it would seem like a reasonable thing for the UUnet's of the world to
have such policy, to not run proprietary protocols on their network.
(That's why they always turn up circuits with encap frame instead of
HDLC.) When you have a network of that size, such sweeping policies are
neccessary to maintain sanity. Not so for small networks.
It wouldn't make sense for a small network to give up the very flexibility
that differentiates it from the large networks.
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
From a policy standpoint, I would entirely agree. A Tier3/2 cannot
afford to be inflexible as can the big boys. Nor do they want to. People
many times will pick a Tier 2 over a Tier 1, not necessarily due to
price, but to the flexibility it generally provides. But from a flat-out
network design standpoint, I would have to argue that. Even if you only
have 3 POP's, if you implement confederations or route reflectors (Just
easy examples.) early as part of your network design, you save yourself
a hell of a lot of work. If you interconnect your network, and keep your
AS exactly what it's supposed to be (I.E. arrogance thread.), and
*autonomous* system, then you save yourself work down the road. I'm sure
every smaller ISP has clients that stay mainly because they know one or
two engineers who will jump through hoops for them if they have
problems, and that's just not the case for the big boys. But best
practices in network policy and best practices in network design are two
different things.
Derek