Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > news.admin.peering > #3440
| From | Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | news.admin.peering |
| Subject | Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense |
| Date | 2026-08-01 21:02 -0700 |
| Organization | csiph.com Internet News Service |
| Message-ID | <114mfgf$1v06$1@csiph.com> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <6a6dfa86$1@news.ausics.net> <114lv9t$1k3v$1@csiph.com> <114m48k$3lksb$1@paganini.bofh.team> <114m5uk$1nvp$1@csiph.com> <114mdif$3m8ub$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
On 8/1/26 20:29, Eddie Martin wrote: > On 2/08/2026 11:19 am, Kevin Bowling wrote: >> On 8/1/26 17:50, Eddie Martin wrote: >>> On 2/08/2026 9:25 am, Kevin Bowling wrote: >>>> On 8/1/26 06:54, noel wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 04:50:28 -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many larger providers use multiple A records for good reasons, it's >>>>> >>>>> yeah, they're too cheap to use what the big boys use hardware load >>>>> balancers >>>>> >>>>>> valid to design around articles flooding into networks and you really >>>>>> shouldn't put a load balancer in front of feeders.. just use the >>>>> >>>>> /me shakes head >>>>> >>>>>> protocols effectively. Inferring that there must be a >>>>>> relationship to >>>>>> IPs or that an operator is forever bound to one set of systems/PoPs >>>>>> doesn't reflect how these systems are run. You need to have >>>>>> proper rDNS >>>>> >>>>> thats contrary to my experience in the real world of running ISP's and >>>>> carriers for over 30 years, crap thats over 35 years now actiually >>>>> >>>>>> set up and the 3 major news server software handle this per design. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> whoooooooooooppppieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee who cares, are you trying to >>>>> tell me i >>>>> should adjust the way i do things, the same way national carriers have >>>>> been doing this for over 30 years just because you say so, just to >>>>> resolve one persons M.O.O? you're a bigger fucking idiot than I was >>>>> starting to think if so. >>>> >>>> I was guiding you nicely to the fact that you have no idea what you >>>> are talking about. I've helped build two of the largest CDNs in the >>>> world, and you do it by using the Internet Protocols as designed >>>> never hardware load balancers which cannot scale and are additional >>>> failure domain. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Good grief, I can't remain silent in this who's got the bigger dick >>> contest any longer, how you do things today is nothing like how it >>> was done before, having worked at high levels in ATT for decades >>> (thankfully I am recently retired so I no longer need to deal with >>> rubbish like this), hardware load balancers have long and are still >>> very common today, or were 7 months ago anyway. So what if you have >>> helped build (I've never heard your name before a couple months ago >>> when you started contributing to INN2)a CDN, a CDN is a CDN, it >>> solves a mostly different problem, or perhaps your CDN was at >>> Alphabet or Facebook, it would explain your arrogances. >> >> The Internet Protocols are the same, only the L7 differs. Inbound >> NNTP is basically the worst possible place to use a load balancer, you >> just have the feeders peer with each other and outward and everything >> flood fills without any additional complexity. Reader servers might >> benefit from a sticky session LB, and a _proxy_ (not LB) would be less >> ridiculous for inbound if it was providing routing or message oracle >> for some distributed backend. >> >>> >>>>>>> All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads >>>>>>> up, its >>>>>>> fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to >>>>>>> discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file >>>>>>> hitting >>>>>>> 10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either >>>>>>> accept the >>>>>>> advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning. >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of >>>>>> use are cramming administration into active life. Your server your >>>>>> rules, so to each their own. >>>>> >>>>> ohh wow really, and i thought running my organisation 15 hours a day 6 >>>>> days a week was because i was bored and wanted to avoid the family.. >>>>> thats where i went wrong.. jesus fucking christ. Jesse miught lack >>>>> common >>>>> courtesy, but you lack common sense, and thats worse. >>>>> dont waste your time trolling me again. >>>> >>>> The mercurial reaction to your own Dunning-Kruger limits is at least >>>> comical. If you don't want peers, drop them. You're the one making >>>> the spectacle and an ass out of yourself. >>> >>> On the contrary you all are making an ass out of yourselves. Both you >>> and Noel need time out, Jesse does need to learn if he wants to >>> provide a service, he needs to consider everyone he provides services >>> to, or request they use hostnames or thank but decline to peer, yes, >>> stuff happens, but it takes 30 seconds to post a note in here even >>> after the fact saying "hey guys" he instead probably spent more >>> energy attacking Noel then he did in putting in thought to how his >>> consequences affect other peers (and now prospective other peers who >>> see how they get treated), and yes Noel should have fired an Email to >>> Jesse instead of venting here, it had merit, but should have been >>> raised in private. Although as he alludes, maybe in jest, that he >>> wont be using Jesse's or anyone's peering shortly either way, a shame >>> to see an apparently long time service pulled because of usenet admin >>> squabbles, and I find it strange that Kevin thinks he can speak to >>> this where from what I can tell, he does not and has never run an >>> NNTP server, let alone service, so not sure where he thinks he can >>> speak on this matter, only one who has run them for a substantial >>> amount of time actually understands, perhaps his misguided beliefs >>> that CDN and usenet are the same. >> >> Another hyperbolic joker. I've run a peer for 15 years, not hard to >> observe. >> > > > You are right Kevin, I apologize, I should have taken a moment to check > you out, I never really cared before. > > Kevin, we have a problem, there appears no evidence you had any part in > a CDN development (anyone can set up reverse proxies, ATS, caches, etc), > you do however run a small MSP computer and software design business in > Chino Valley, despite no real world peering presence with no AS in the > routing databases, a cursory look shows you do lease a /29 prefix, but > Kevin, you need a minimum of a /24 prefix for BGP, and anyone running > CDN's have decent IPAS, anything smaller and networks discard the route > opting for the next up, unlike with csiph usenet I see you run Kevin, > where you could do that on dialup with single IP, so perhaps I am > starting to see Kevin, why you dislike networks using IP's and want them > to use host names, so much. csiph is not a CDN nor claimed to be, it's a single PoP done on my own time and dime for 15 years. And also trivially observable currently serving around 10-30 million articles a day, making it one of the busiest free text readers. Meanwhile you are using someone else's system. > > Another thing puzzles me Kevin, since you are the CDN expert, why is > there no talks at NANOG, why not share that all encompassing knowledge > to those mere mortals beneath you, I see you only graduated college in > 2011, so I understand why you are confused and can not comprehend how > large networks are actually designed and run, since you were not even > born when some people here were running them, however Kevin, I can > respect the high bar you've set for yourself, I really do, and perhaps > one day, you'll get there, but I suspect because you detest humble pie, > it's a bit off yet, but that's not a real problem Kevin, as you're still > a young fellow. Multiple public talks, again trivial to find. NANOG is concentrated with people that configure and operate network devices, not software developers. You're going off again on things you have no idea about, convinced you are right with your Dunning-Krueger twin. The root point remains, if you have some notion of how a peer should look to peer with you, deal with it privately or simply disconnect them. Making a public spectacle with poor technical judgement to attempt to shame people is sheer idiocy.
Back to news.admin.peering | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2026-08-01 09:56 +1000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2026-08-01 03:13 +0000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-01 06:18 +0200
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> - 2026-08-01 08:52 +0200
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-08-01 01:10 -0700
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2026-08-01 20:55 +1000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-08-01 04:50 -0700
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2026-08-01 23:54 +1000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Jesse Rehmer <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com> - 2026-08-01 16:25 +0000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Ivo Gandolfo <usenet@bofh.team> - 2026-08-01 21:02 +0200
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2026-08-02 09:04 +1000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Ivo Gandolfo <usenet@bofh.team> - 2026-08-02 12:54 +0200
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2026-08-04 08:23 +1000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Jesse Rehmer <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com> - 2026-08-04 02:34 +0000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-08-06 00:12 -0700
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2026-08-02 11:45 +0000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-08-01 16:25 -0700
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Eddie Martin <ejm@nospammy.myplace.de> - 2026-08-02 10:50 +1000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-08-01 18:19 -0700
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Eddie Martin <ejm@nospammy.myplace.de> - 2026-08-02 13:29 +1000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-08-01 21:02 -0700
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-02 06:41 +0200
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-08-01 22:11 -0700
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Ivo Gandolfo <usenet@bofh.team> - 2026-08-02 13:02 +0200
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense D <J@M> - 2026-08-02 06:47 +0200
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2026-08-01 20:08 +1000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> - 2026-08-01 16:35 +0200
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2026-08-01 20:07 +1000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Nigel Reed <sysop@endofthelinebbs.com> - 2026-08-15 01:47 -0500
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Jesse Rehmer <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com> - 2026-08-15 13:17 +0000
Re: another peeve with newsmaster who dont do common sense Nigel Reed <sysop@endofthelinebbs.com> - 2026-08-29 22:32 -0500
csiph-web