RE: NOC communications

How about a major oversimplification of a fix. Closed mailing list. One
primary contact for each company is designated and allowed to join the list.
Every 2 weeks (maybe a month?) an email is autogenerated that must be ACK'd
or that companies NOC entry is considered stale. The person on the mailing
list is responsible for ensuring contact info is updated.

Uhm, the usual problem is the contact person leaves the company. The
exit interview rarely includes updating the contact information. Everyone
else will know the information is out-dated, assuming you ban people from
setting up procmail to auto-ack the message. But how do you get the
replacement's contact information if the replacement doesn't know about
the list, database, server, etc and you don't know who the replacement
is?

In any case, I'd be happy to participate in such a list. Although
in some sense you are preaching to the converted.

If you would like a sample message, how about something similar to
what a previous government contractor used to send every six months or
so when they managed the NIC database. Perhaps change the "do not
respond," to "respond with 'ok 123456'" to make the procmail folks work
a little harder writing their auto-ack scripts.

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 01:09:33 PDT
From: HOSTMASTER@NIC.DDN.MIL
Subject: Network Administrator Update
To: sean@DRANET.DRA.COM

Dear Network Coordinator,
   
  Here is the current information pertaining to your network.
  Please review it and return any corrections to
  HOSTMASTER@NIC.DDN.MIL.

  ** If no changes are needed, you do not need to respond to this
     message. **

  The file

     NETINFO:NETWORK-CONTACTS.TXT

  on the NIC.DDN.MIL machine (network address 192.67.67.20) contains
  information regarding network contacts for every IP network registered
  with the DDN Network Information Center. This file may be FTPed by
  invoking FTP at your local host and connecting to NIC.DDN.MIL, using
  USERID = 'anonymous', PASSWORD = 'guest'.

Please allow 8 working days for changes to be processed.
   
Thanks,

Hostmaster Staff
DDN Network Information Center

-----------

NAME of responsible organization: Data Research Assoicates, Inc.

  Network Name: DRA-STL
  Network Number: 192.65.218.0

  Coordinator:
     Donelan, Sean M. (SMD1) sean@DRANET.DRA.COM
     (314) 432-1100

I'm a firm believer in keeping things simple. But I also think we have
to understand the nature of institutional entropy. Any system that
relies on the active, continuing participation of a particular individual,
no matter how well intentioned and no matter how minor, will run off
the same cliff. The system has to be inserted directly into the
institutional gut. Where the institution goes, it goes. And it needs to
be more painful for the institution to remove it, than to leave it in.

ARIN meets the criteria of gut wrenching pain. But I wonder how often
and how long they can really apply sanctions against a network provider
before it becomes easier for the network provider to take some
alternative action. So they give ARIN a phone number, get their
addresses and disconnect the phone line a week later. In six months
or a year, when they need more addresses they plug the phone back in,
and call ARIN. I really wish I was just being cynical, but can I
see a show of hands of those providers who thought the same thing?

Maybe I'm just slow to catch on, but here are what I see the basic
principles of an inter-NOC communications system:

   1) require an affirmative management action to start participation
  pay a dollar, cut a ribbon, sign something, do something, anything
  to avoid the 'NOC cowboy' problem, and everything that engineer
  did being tainted when he or she leaves. Ok, the CEO doesn't
  have to understand how it works, she just has to think it was her
  brillant idea.
   2) once in use it should require an affirmative action to disconnect
  not require anyone to remember to update it. not require anyone
  to reload the special software on the PC after Microsoft does
  its periodic self-destruct. neglect shouldn't kill it, only
  yanking the wires out of the wall or some virtual equivalent should
  do it in.
   3) must not be annoying, but still a pain
  if it doesn't involve me, don't bother me. the 'normal'
  channels should be the easiest to use. If you can't show
  the normal channels failed, you shouldn't be using this.
  If all else fails, it should get Someone's attention by Klaxon,
  sirens, flashing lights, you name it. If you answer it, it
  will shut up.
   4) must be a 'visible' system
  can't be buried on an individual's PC hard drive, or inside
  a PBX's programming. Even if no one tells them about it, new
  NOC engineers should trip over it in their normal course of
  business (i.e. before they need it). "Hey wally, what's that
  funny machine in the corner for?"
   4a) preferably something pointy-haired managers can point to when
  they are giving tours of the NOC
        "This is CNN, and this is our inter-NOC communications link"
  I thought about plugging a EAS-like box into the NOC's CNN feed,
  since everyone seems to already have CNN in their NOCs. See
  klaxon, siren, flashing lights above.
    5) Positive ID required
  Everyone (and I mean Everyone) must be able to know exactly
  who (at least by organizational affiliation) is on, and off
  the NOC communications net. The list of participants must be
  able to be published, without fear a non-participant could use
  the information to intrude into the NOC-net. It should be
  possible to show the system works to an outsider, without the
  outsider becoming an insider (i.e. learning the secret handshake).
  Likewise, it should be possible to positively disprove a
  non-participant's claim they are on-net if they aren't. No
  signing MLPA's and never connecting.

and I'm a bit leery of #6, but the more I speak with people who give
me reasons why they haven't/won't participated in the previous attempts,
I can't find a way around it.

    6) a STRONG acceptable use policy, and a 'moderator' enforcing it
  The clash between 'open' and 'private' is a big one. Some folks
  have said the previous attempts had too much 'noise' and not
  enough 'signal.' Although from my experience the problem
  was usually ZERO signal, and ZERO noise. But maybe my filters
  aren't as sensitive as other peoples'.

Since we have not yet created a sucessfull system, all previous attempts
going down in the flames of neglect. Who knows if any of those principles
are even close to what's required. I hope you noticed most of the
my principles involve human or organizational behaivor issues, not
technical requirements. I think technically, almost any of the
previous systems could have worked.

BTW, I think the line printer idea rules :slight_smile:

In the old days, when I had to walk 20 miles in the snow up hill both
ways to school, TYMNET used to send their X.25 outage notifications to
customers via Western Union teletype. It wasn't an ASR33, but some
type of Telex thermal printer at the time. You knew when it fired
up, trouble was on its way.

Uhm, the usual problem is the contact person leaves the company. The
exit interview rarely includes updating the contact information. Everyone
else will know the information is out-dated, assuming you ban people from
setting up procmail to auto-ack the message. But how do you get the
rplacement's contact information if the replacement doesn't know about
the list, database, server, etc and you don't know who the replacement
is?

This describes another major problem in our industry. Policy and Procedure.
Can you think of any other industry where the =primary= contact to the World
could leave the company and no one from an operational perspective would
think to let the world know they had left? :slight_smile:

If you would like a sample message, how about something similar to
what a previous government contractor used to send every six months or
so when they managed the NIC database. Perhaps change the "do not
respond," to "respond with 'ok 123456'" to make the procmail folks work
a little harder writing their auto-ack scripts.

Precisely what I had in mind.

And as usual, I agree with the rest of your message as well. However, the
solution that I proposed was an attempt to develop an idea that was
reasonable non-intrusive, didn't rely on adding new gear and monthly
recurring cost, and had the potential of working.

It could be -way- more sophisticated than this. I can think of neat things
involving push (We all have a computer in the NOC don't we?), and probably
some other things if I spent some time on it.

But what it has to boil down to is that inter-NOC communications has to
become something so much a part of the day-to-day life that it can't be
neglected. If that can be done in the wild, wild west of our industry
as it stands now, I don't know.

OK -- off to the waterslide :slight_smile:

Derek

Derek Elder wrote:

This describes another major problem in our industry. Policy and Procedure.
Can you think of any other industry where the =primary= contact to the World
could leave the company and no one from an operational perspective would
think to let the world know they had left? :slight_smile:

  Try all of them? One of the things I did to put myself through school
was work as an office temp. As such I used to do a lot of phone work and
in every office I ever went into one or both of the following was true:

1. All or most of the "official" contact info was out of date, including
the company's own directories, etc.
2. The good companies/individuals that I worked for or with had a list
of the "real" people who actually knew what was happening and could get
things done.

  This included companies from the smallest local mom and pop office up
to the national headquarters of a major residential mortgage company.
The only differences I see between those companies and our industry is
that there are situations where someone might actually *need* to contact
your NOC on an "emergency" basis, and (and this is crucial) it's to YOUR
advantage to have accurate contact info because if there is a problem
it's better for your business to have it taken care of sooner rather
than later.

  To date the fiduciary motivation hasn't been sufficient to encourage
anything close to universal accuracy of contact information. My personal
belief (hope?) is that this will change long before the government
considers getting involved because the costs related to not being
reachable will eventually exceed the costs of keeping the contact info
up to date (if they haven't already).

Doug