Re: Lazy network operators

[John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>]

Alex,
    Are you going to print up some "Nanog Problem Solving Algorithm" T-shirts?
:-)
/John

At 12:14 PM +0100 4/14/04, Alex Bligh wrote:
> <metaargument>
>
> Not to pick on you in particular:
>
> This argument (at least on NANOG) seems to be characterized by the following
>
> 1. A suggests X, where X is a member of S, being a set of largely well known
>  solutions.
>
> 2. B1 ... Bn, where n>>1 says X is without value as X does not solve
>  the entire problem, each using a different definition of "problem".
>
> 3. C1 ... Cn, where n>>1 says X violates a "fundamental principle of
>  the internet" (in general without quoting chapter & verse as to
>  its definition, or noting that for its entire history, fundamental
>  principles, such as they exist, have often been in conflict, for
>  instance "end-to-end connectivity", and "taking responsibility for
>  ones own network" in the context of (for instance) packets sourced
>  from 127.0.0.1 etc.)
>
> 4. D1 .. Dn, where n>>1 says X will put an enormous burden on some
>  network operators and/or inconvenience users (normally without
>  reference to the burden/inconvenience from the problem itself,
>  albeit asymmetrically distributed, and normally without reference
>  to the extent or otherwise that similar problems have been
>  solved in a pragmatic manner before - viz route filtering, bogon
>  filtering etc.)
>
> 5. E1 .. En, where n>>1 insert irrelevant and ill-argued invective
>  thus obscuring any new points in 1..4 above.
>
> 6. Goto 1.