[Rack] [Noisebridge-discuss] Omar: Please don't "re-build" the network
Jonathan Lassoff
jof at thejof.com
Wed Oct 23 05:04:56 UTC 2013
Thought I'd chime in here, as I've done a lot of the existing networking.
I'm all for do-ocracy. That's how I built the current network.
That said, at each step, I worked to have a concrete value proposition
for each change. I don't think it's appropriate to make changes for
change's sake.
This makes me think of a common adage at Noisebridge, which is that
"we don't try to preemptively solve problems before they happen".
Omar -- I'm reading over the proposal as it is written up in its
current form (https://www.noisebridge.net/index.php?title=New_Network&oldid=34572),
and I'm trying to get a better understanding of where you're coming
from and why you would like to re-do everything.
In particular, I'm confused by the rhetoric of this sentence: "With
the patch in place, and the WiFi being up regardless of whether or not
any of the switches are online, I proposed we redo ALL the network
infrastructure."
Why would you like to redo all the infrastructure?
In comparing the Logistics and Steps/ToDo List sections with what we
have today, there is very little additions, other than segmentation
between servers, printers/non-human equipment, and human users.
Currently, we have one, big internal subnet and Ethernet broadcast
domain, and it's worked mostly pretty well for us.
However, there are a number of services that are running now that are
not accounted for in the proposed new design.
Some things that come to mind: QoS, WAN flow and SNAT load balancing,
ISP failover, DNAT forwardings for {MC Hawking, Mode-S receiver
hosts}.
Also, why do you want to do away with switches?
They serve a useful purpose in segmenting out the separate Ethernet
broadcast domains, measure aggregate traffic throughput, and
monitoring of link states of infrastructure gear.
So, I have two requests/questions:
- Please explain why segmenting out users, printers, and servers is useful.
- Please propose how to implement the existing network services, so
that service continuity is maintained.
Cheers,
jof
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Omar Zouai <ozouai.bavc at gmail.com> wrote:
> A few things.
> I am not a "new" member, I've been visiting NoiseBridge for over a year now.
> What part of new network PROPOSAL do you guys not understand? Key word
> 'PROPOSAL'. All of you are taking this idea up the butt like a communist
> government. Ideas aren't perfect, they are meant to be perfected through
> revision. There is no need to be obtrusive to the spread of new ideas,
> NoiseBridge should not be a competitive environment. While yes, my idea is
> pretty radical; so was electricity. Everybody didn't want it, Standard Oil
> hated it. Diving deeper down into the competition like AC and DC power. DC
> was being used to power the homes, and the generators had to be close by or
> have a high capacity to allow for the majority of the power to reach its
> destination. Edison thought it was the best. Then AC is started to become
> perfected, and Edison is worried. Fast forward to today. All our homes have
> AC power coming into them, due to its ability to travel long distances.
>
> I'm not saying that my idea is the best idea, all I'm saying is that we
> could give it a chance, and change factors to have it run smoother.
>
> I made the Wiki page so I can better show what I intend to do. And where
> does it say that I intend to EoL the existing equipment. The only thing that
> was intended to be gone is BikeShed, and maybe it will still be up for
> redundancy.
>
> And for those who are skeptical(which most of you are). I do know what I am
> doing, I've been testing this network idea on my home network(and it's
> running great). A little common sense goes a long way. So think twice before
> you say something, you never know the full perspective.
>
> There's a fine line between being skeptical, and being ignorant.
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:00 AM, <rack-request at lists.noisebridge.net> wrote:
>>
>> Send Rack mailing list submissions to
>> rack at lists.noisebridge.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/rack
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> rack-request at lists.noisebridge.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> rack-owner at lists.noisebridge.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Rack digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Casey Callendrello comment rated +1 by Giovanni Re. Tag:
>> Avoiding NB antipatterns. - Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Omar:
>> Please don't "re-build" the network (giovanni_re)
>> 2. Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Omar: Please don't "re-build" the
>> network (Oren Beck)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:30:33 -0700
>> From: "giovanni_re" <john_re at fastmail.us>
>> To: Casey Callendrello <c1 at caseyc.net>, ozouai.bavc at gmail.com, rack
>> <Rack at lists.noisebridge.net>, NoiseBridge Discuss
>> <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>> Subject: [Rack] Casey Callendrello comment rated +1 by Giovanni Re.
>> Tag: Avoiding NB antipatterns. - Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Omar:
>> Please don't "re-build" the network
>> Message-ID:
>> <1382383833.3638.36731665.6ED672DB at webmail.messagingengine.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>> Great post, Casey! :)
>>
>> I suggest you get the heart of this somewhere prominent on the nb wiki.
>> A "Things for NB Newbies to know, do, & not do".
>> Link that from the nb home page.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Casey Callendrello wrote:
>> > Omar,
>> >
>> > I see you are planning to re-do the network, according to your wiki
>> > page[1]. I am personally asking you not to do this. What you propose is
>> > already how the network is configured.
>> >
>> > Noisebridge operates on a do-ocracy principle, yes, but that does not
>> > trump the One Rule of Excellence. I am saying now, that a lot of people
>> > will find it very unexcellent if you rip out some carefully constructed,
>> > critical infrastructure.
>> >
>> > Nobody is claiming the network is perfect. When bikeshed refused to boot
>> > for a few days, that sucked. However, the solution is not to eliminate
>> > everything. The solution is to identify problems with the existing
>> > infrastructure, then fixing those. Can you please list what you think
>> > needs to be fixed?
>> >
>> > There is an anti-pattern we've seen a few times here at Noisebridge,
>> > where occasionally people newly join our community and try and "fix"
>> > everything they see is "broken" at once. These people either burn out,
>> > supernova out, or are banned. Please take it slowly.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > --Casey
>> >
>> > 1: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/New_Network
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>> --- Join the BerkeleyTIP-Global mail list -
>> http://groups.google.com/group/BerkTIPGlobal. All Freedom SW, HW & Culture.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:49:00 +0800
>> From: Oren Beck <orenbeck at gmail.com>
>> To: Casey Callendrello <c1 at caseyc.net>
>> Cc: rack <Rack at lists.noisebridge.net>, ozouai.bavc at gmail.com,
>> NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Rack] [Noisebridge-discuss] Omar: Please don't
>> "re-build" the network
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <CAHdyy+_iuPwvQnn9SYG5T6ryCT_c-Rj1XKmP6axNuEdD2T9FSA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>
>> Advocating for sanity as it's own path:>
>>
>> Decades ago we used to yank sites from LA36 terminals on dial
>> modem>mainframe.. screamingly forwards to that year's best affordable kit.
>> Same debates and team fragging applied then as now.
>>
>> So- we devised a process not yet improved on: Build the next generation of
>> kit- thence validate it's stability in ramped up production- before daring
>> to propose EoL on the old kit/network.
>>
>> I would approach the NB site in a similar proven mode. Obtain a new
>> rack/cabinet, new cabling- et all- and deploy alongside the existing
>> functional chaos. LAVISHLY annotate/document/LABEL REDUNDANTLY all cables
>> and jack fields etc whilst so doing. The next person to service/maintain
>> interoperability will be one of us:> So our craft level will either
>> haunt
>> or bless us. Never forget that.
>>
>> Snip to the recap- Build a new infrastructure before touching the
>> existing-
>> we're golden.
>>
>> And thence begin a slow, deliberative migration of non-mission critical
>> loads to the new AWESOME build that was engineered to show our best. I do
>> so hope the build showcases the maybe several person-centuries of tech
>> life
>> experience this collective has between us.
>>
>> I'd also gently direct architecture of running ample spare cables to be
>> tagged as such for expansion.
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/rack/attachments/20131022/65d2306c/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rack mailing list
>> Rack at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/rack
>>
>>
>> End of Rack Digest, Vol 45, Issue 21
>> ************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rack mailing list
> Rack at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/rack
>
More information about the Rack
mailing list