[Rack] Networking as of 2013-10-02

[Ben Kochie]

On Sun, 6 Oct 2013, Omar Zouai wrote:

> 
> I'm terribly sorry about your disconnected equipment. But we were in a hurry to get the WiFi up
> and running. As I stated before, the reason this started was due to the network NOT WORKING. If
> something isn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed.

Yes, and the correct thing to do is consult the documentation, maybe ask a 
question or two on the list, and fix the problem.

> Does it ever occur to you that some people might have legitimate reasons for doing something?
> Accidents do happen, and equipment malfunctions all the time. In any case, Networking is a
> nightmare.

Networking is not a nightmare, it's actually pretty easy.  The network 
config that we have developed is simple, easy to understand, trace, and 
debug.

> And my idea isn't exactly "gutting" the network. All it really is, is adding a Linux box as a
> master router. Then routing traffic through it. Simply installing some new pieces of equipment,
> then routing the existing traffic over to it.

The thing is, we already have that.  If you had bothered to consult 
anyone, or read any of the existing docs, you would have found this out.

The green soekris on the wall of tubes is a linux box, running a simple 
embeded system called "Vyatta".  It can easily be replaced since it boots 
from a single image.  The configuration is also simple, and is a single 
XML-ish file that can be dropped into place.

Please fix bikeshed, (used to be called r00ter) it probably just needs to 
be powere cycled.  The soekris is old and sometimes has a hard time 
reading the CF card on cold boot.

> On Oct 6, 2013 2:26 PM, "Glen Jarvis" <glen at glenjarvis.com> wrote:
>
>       > The network at noisebridge is not a toy for you to play with.
>
>       Disclaimer: I actually agree that it would be much more convenient if the network
>       wasn't dramatically gutted when not necessary. I only point out the following
>       technicality.
> 
>
>       This is "doacracy" at its best (and worst). Technically, it is a toy that people
>       could play with. It's a shame the play wasn't "playing nicely" with the work
>       already done (and previously working).
>
>       Glen
> 
> 
>