nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
From: Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) <nanog () dune silkroad com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:47:56 -0500 (EST)
On the other hand..... It has been clear over the past (years?..... time sure flies....) there has been a strong and very vocal pro-filtering Keep the Routing Table Small at *any* cost, group of advocates and protagonists in the NANOG mailing list. It is easy to reach the conjecture that the _perception_ of *others* is; having many strong and vocal pro-filtering protagonists in NANOG; and given the fact that the few who warned that selective route filtering was very problematic were flamed-broiled and none came to their defense \Metaphor .........................after all, if a town in the days of the Salem witch trials watched as the zealots burned the heretics, is the town without blood on their hands just because they remained silent in their comfy homes? \EndMetaphor It is not a strong leap of the imagination to believe that NANOG, the vocal majority, supports selective route-filtering to control routing table growth and was very aggressive to oppress the those whom dared to stand alone and challenge there will. Please keep in mind that as in *any* group, NANOG included, by virture of allowing a few dominate voices to represent the group, does bear responsibility for the perception others view the group. Best Regards, Tim
After scanning the on-line notes from the NANOG meetings, I did not find any "recommendations" made by the group. In fact, the group has mentioned many times that it is inappropriate to set policy. What the group does is discuss various technical problems, share work-arounds, fixes, kludges, and as individuals adopt what is useful. --EliseSean Donelan writes: What is NANOG's role? I was surprised to read in the March 25 issue of NetworkWorld Alecia Cooper at Sprint comments that Sprint is just following NANOG's recommendations to block addresses to minimize the number of router table entries. I must have missed something, because I don't remember NANOG ever making any recommendation, of any sort. Is this just a case of bad reporting by Joanie Wexler at NetworkWorld? A bad case of passing the buck by Alecia Cooper at Sprint? Or something else? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
Current thread:
- NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Michael Dillon (Apr 01)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Gordon Cook (Apr 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Gordon Cook (Apr 01)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Dave Siegel (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role rboivie (Apr 01)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Sean Donelan (Apr 01)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Michael Dillon (Apr 01)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Elise Gerich (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role @NANOG-LIST (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Larry J. Plato (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Michael Dillon (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Curtis Villamizar (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Jon Zeeff (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Michael Dillon (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role John Curran (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Stan Barber (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role @NANOG-LIST (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Tim Salo (Apr 02)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Ehud Gavron (Apr 02)