lowen at pari.edu
Fri Feb 18 10:21:44 CST 2011
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:57:46 pm Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > From: "Michael Dillon" <wavetossed at googlemail.com>
> > This sounds a lot like bellhead speak.
> As a long time fan of David Isen, I almost fell off my chair laughing at
> that, Michael: Bell *wanted* things -- specifically the network -- smart
> and complicated; Isen's POV, which got him... well, I don't know if
> "laughed out of" AT&T is the right way to phrase it, but it's close enough,
> Stupid network; smart endpoints.
The bellhead PoV isn't wrong; it's just different. Stupid endpoints tend to be more usable when such usage matters, such as emergencies (power outages, need to call 911, etc).
The problem is we're in neither of the two worlds at the moment; we're in between, with complex/smart networks (QoS, etc) and smart/complex endpoints. Which, IMO, is the worst of both worlds.
Stupid network and smart endpoint: a smart endpoint user or said user's tech person has a chance to fully troubleshoot and correct issues;
Smart network and stupid endpoint: net op tech has a chance to fully troubleshoot and correct issues;
Smart network and smart endpoint: nobody can fully troubleshoot anything, and much fingerpointing and hilarity ensues....
More information about the NANOG