Re: Nat

[Jason Baugher <jason () thebaughers com>]

In the real world of service providers and customers, people don't "choose
to be the authors". To choose, they would have to know the options. If I
were to randomly poll 1000 of our residential customers to ask them about
their L2/L3 networks, firewall policies, etc..., they'd have no idea what I
was talking about. The majority of our small business customers are in the
same situation. The larger businesses with their own IT staff are in a
little better shape. The network consultants in the area barely understand
these subjects better than their customers.

Whether we're talking about Joe Sixpack or John SMB, they pay for a service
and expect that service to magically work. They've used phones for years
without understanding the PSTN. We gave them cellphones without making them
understand RF/LTE/GPRS/etc.... They drive cars every day without the first
clue about how internal combustion engines work. Why should data networks
be any different? Sure, I'm oversimplifying things, but that's how
non-technical people think. They should be able to spend money on cool
and/or useful gadgets, connect those gadgets to their networks, and use
them. It's tough enough to try and explain why the neighbor's wi-fi parked
on channel 8 is an interferer. L2, L3, IPv4/6 and Multicast? Good luck.

> From a service provider perspective, I feel we have 2 choices. The first is
to spend a lot of time trying to educate our customers on how networks work
and how to manage theirs. Personally, I'd rather have my fingernails pulled
out. The second, and I feel much less likely to fail, is to spend time
developing technology and service offerings to give our customers the easy,
spoon-fed experience they're looking for - and charge them for it
accordingly.





On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf () dessus com> wrote:

> You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.  If people
> choose to be the authors of their own misfortunes, that is their choice.  I
> know a good many folks who are not members of NANOG yet have multiple
> separate L2 and L3 networks to keep the "crap" isolated.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus.com () nanog org] On
> Behalf
> > Of Mike Hammett
> > Sent: Sunday, 20 December, 2015 20:37
> > Cc: North American Network Operators Group
> > Subject: Re: Nat
> >
> > We can't get people to use passwords judiciously (create them at all for
> > WiFi, change them, use more than one, etc.) and now you want them to
> > manage networks?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Randy Fischer" <randy.fischer () gmail com>
> > To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net>
> > Cc: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog () nanog org>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 9:34:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Nat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Mike Hammett < nanog () ics-il net >
> wrote:
> > Most people couldn't care less and just want the Internet on their device
> > to work.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, if the best practice for CPE routers included as a matter of course
> > the subnets "connected to internet", "local only (e.g. IoT)" and "guest
> > network", and if they just worked, then they wouldn't mind that either.
> >
> >
> > A friend of mine used to refer to this as 'refrigerator consciousness" -
> > he was a gearhead, so it was a pejorative. Instead, I think of it as a
> > design goal.
> >
> >
> > -Randy Fischer