shim6 rides again (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
heldal at eml.cc
Wed Feb 15 20:14:03 UTC 2006
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:56:51 +0000 (GMT), "Edward B. DREGER"
<eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net> said:
> Per, I'd like to take exception with your "exclude small companies"
> remark. This thread is about tighter engineering and ops involvement,
> so why shoot down those who have the two tightly coupled? Why eschew
> people who work both sides of the fence?
Sorry, the following sentence came out all wrong due to last minute
Most nanog'ers, with the exception of those
representing small companies which don't
separate engineering from operations, belong
in the engineering category anyway.
...quite the opposite of what I ment to say. Most nanog'ers work in
engineering. The problem is a lack of ops-people turning these
xOG-groups ito xEG-groups instead.
PS! I prefer tight integration of operations and engineering. I'd say
it's good for engineering-staff to do ops-work from time to time (eat
their own dog food;). Organisations that practise job-rotation generally
have the better solutions.
More information about the NANOG