nanog mailing list archives
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
From: Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:41:54 +0100
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:30:18PM -0600, Albert Meyer wrote:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat.
That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them: "dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in". :-) Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough self discipline to stay mostly on topic.
I looked around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind channels to organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the channel to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea?
Who cares about organizations when it comes to exchange a few words between operators? Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr () cluenet de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Current thread:
- http://weblog.disgu.st down Tyrone Chickenbone (Dec 21)
- Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down william(at)elan.net (Dec 21)
- Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down Andrew Kirch (Dec 21)
- #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down Albert Meyer (Dec 21)
- Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down chip (Dec 21)
- Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down Albert Meyer (Dec 21)
- Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down Daniel Roesen (Dec 21)
- Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down Gadi Evron (Dec 21)
- Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down Daniel Roesen (Dec 21)
- Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down Andrew Kirch (Dec 21)
- Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down william(at)elan.net (Dec 21)
- Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down Paul Vixie (Dec 21)