Worst Mistake New/Small Networks Can Make

dyjytyl · none Joined: 12 Jun 2004 Posts: 11

What's gotten me lately is this emerging trend on link applications that these newer, or smaller ("smaller" defined under 5,000 users AT LEAST/bare minimum) networks are becoming involved in. Now when I say "small" network, which is an important idea to grasp, I mean networks that are nowhere near Efnet's size. I'm talking in the 5,000-10,000 user range. Anything below that, for lack of better words, is too small to regard, nay, consider, for this "trend" i am about to tell you..

Ok, here's the deal: Efnet and larger networks have a very strict linking policy. Take a look, I implore you. The US version of the linking policy at Efnet can be found here: http://www.efnet.info/?module=docs&doc=16&type=html . And unless you physically own the server and it sleeps with you next to your bed at night or unless it's in a 100 foot underground bunker resistant to atomic warfare, you won't be linking I hate to break your heart.

The policy outlines guidelines such as the server being dedicated (for security reasons, ok sure, have we heard of "access levels"??). Ok, I can see this running for Efnet and the larger networks, but why the hell do smaller/newer networks try to pull this shit?

Smaller networks and newer networks need to understand that they have to start at the bottom. Starting at the bottom does NOT include strict link policies directly related to efnet's, in fact efnet is in a total different league than any smaller networks. The two ("large" nets vs. "small" nets) are in complete contrast. You can't mix and match the policies because they aren't flexible enough to work on both sides of the fence.

The main idea: linking to a small/new network should be relatively EASY to do. Nowhere in there did I say these networks should link crappy or inefficient servers--I said it should be EASY for new links to come in and be evaluated loosely. So why do networks, such as NewNet include the same Efnet policies in their own?

In fact, the very goal of NewNet is:

sliq · Newbie Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 92 Location: IRC

I have been running a "small" net for years, and things go between having around 10 users connected simultaneously to having around 70-100 users.

The point is, we know what we are doing, and we don't want or need "n00bs" connecting and being like "wanna link", "can i have ircop", etc. because simply, it's annoying. So in our linking policy we state that we only allow dedicated servers. However, if for an example, one of our long time admins (not a complete n00b who knows nothing about IRC or being a systems admin) would like to link in a good shell.. ie Lomag, Netdoozer, etc. That would certainly be something that 1) benefits the network 2) provides a very good leaf server.

Most of the reasons small networks do that, is because they just don't want the newest irc users getting on and pestering them for o:lines or link applications.

Take a look at my linking policy:

dyjytyl · none Joined: 12 Jun 2004 Posts: 11

I think you're confusing money with intelligence. Just because someone runs a shell, doesn't mean they're not smart. Any good net admin should be able to determine how intelligent a person linking is by carrying on a good 10-20 minute conversation with them. After all, a good network admin or linking team is going to make it part of their interest to get to know the person who wants to link before doing anything. It's much easier to tell how knowledgable that person is by talking to them rather than pre-judging them based on their account.

The main reason networks require a dedicated box is for security reasons, but on a small network, that's not an issue believe it or not. It's like small games who see little exposure--you won't catch many cheaters on there. But once they grow you're attracting people like Japs Clan who make it their goal to "exploit those who claim to be exposed." It's one step ahead of the game when you worry about security on such a small network, and unfortunately, it's a step you don't want to be ahead of yourself in. It determines the skilled net admins/link teams from all the others who fail to recognize this.

It's only a partially accurate assumption that only smart people run their own dedicated box. It runs both ways though. You can have Kevin Mitnick runnin a shell and request a link, or some idiot with a lot of money but no experience buy a dedicated server.. You can't really make those type of assumptions.

Your requirements seem alright. With regard to the size of your network, I'd say the trial period is a bit lengthy (a week is just as good a trial period as any other, anything after that is probably a repeat of the past week), but it looks decent.

And on another note, i don't hold too much respect for those who look down on "noobs." We were all there once, and we're really just stealing all the credit when we claim otherwise. Sure you pick up things on your own, as noobs should be expected to as well, but at some point, or many points, you picked up things from other people you otherwise wouldn't have or it would've taken a long time to do so. I don't have a problem with "noobs," I just think people have the wrong attitude in helping them. But I won't turn this into a different story, I'll just leave it at that, that's my personal opinion.

sliq · Newbie Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 92 Location: IRC

dyjytyl · none Joined: 12 Jun 2004 Posts: 11

I see your point with the 30 day trial period, but what does this mean:

sliq · Newbie Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 92 Location: IRC

nah... it means the "applicant" must be an active member of our network channel, #Lobby for at least 30 days prior to asking to link.

and as for...

dyjytyl · none Joined: 12 Jun 2004 Posts: 11

So there's going to be 60 days, which does seem lengthy. It's a bit deterring.

Goodluck running all those processes. I don't think all admins would express an interest in running all of that, and it's going to be more of a hassle to keep all of these things up to date, but if you think you're motivated to do that I'm not questioning your abilities Wink

I've been there and done that, and it will become quite routine. It's more of an enjoyable experience might i say Wink

sliq · Newbie Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 92 Location: IRC

Yup, been doing it for years, and have never questioned myself about it... and I have a great group of people behind me to back me up Smile

My security admin is an awesome person to work with, too Smile

systat · Newbie Joined: 16 Nov 2003 Posts: 61 Location: USA

Umm.....
Make a long story SHORT
come to irc.exchat.org
all we ask is,
the server has to be stable
Atleast 10 people
No power hungry opers
No Warez!
No Spamming

If you can compile with that well
You are as good as linked

Thanks,
ZeRoX Co-Founder!

sliq · Newbie Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 92 Location: IRC

What is the point for you to post you're pathetic excuse of a linking policy ZeRoX? You are the perfect example of who not to link with in this situation Wink

That is, if you would read the post.

Justwondering · Guest

Clearly you have had an application rejected by Newnet. After reading your posts, one is left wondering the following:

How long have you been a user on Newnet?

Have you been an active contributor to the network? (If so, one would think you would have a clear understanding of the policies of the Network and the reasons behind them)

Did you attempt to discuss your objections with the Network administrator/s? If so, what was their reaction to the points you raised??

It seems to me you have presented but one side of the story here. As an outsider, I would venture to suggest that you would appear to be exactly the type of administrator a growing network could do without. An ability to discuss issues and to work cohesively with others is the first step towards creating a successful network environment. Admins that fly off on a tangent every time things dont go their way do nothing but create disharmony and unrest, ultimately leading to the division and eventual demise of the network.

My suggestion to you would be to gather together a group of your friends and create your own perfect network. That way...you make the rules...you link whomever you like...and if you dont like the fact that they disagree with you....you get to play the big network admin and jupe them Razz

Sounds far less stressful than getting all uptight about the fact that Newnet didnt want you Smile

dyjytyl · none Joined: 12 Jun 2004 Posts: 11

I'm afraid you look like the optimistic hero in this post, but I already know most of the linking team on NewNet, and YES I HAVE talked to them like your picture of a "perfect, patient, and oh-so-understanding" admin has been painted. I already spoke with several of them, and I've already talked this out. The net's been around since 1996 or so, and the policies stand. I was told if they knew I was going to link there they would've warned me that the network was so anal. Too bad I didn't receive that warning.

Clearly I had an application rejected. What would be the purpose of posting if I didn't? Congrats Sherlock, you're one step ahead of yourself.

This "one side of the story" your hearing, if you haven't noticed, is coming from a regular user/admin just like anyone else looking to link, and yes I'm a patient person--up to a certain point.

Justwondering · Guest

It was worth responding to your post just to have my original impression of you confirmed

braindigitalis · Idler Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 443 Location: IRC

You should check out our linking policies which are designed in such a way as to establish a bond of trust between admins and newcomers.

http://www.chatspike.net/?page=linking

after a spate of bad links these rules have been established and so far have resulted in good, reliable admins with stable boxes.

We don't insist that the machine be used only for the ircd process(es), however we do insist the box be dedicated.

This is done for many reasons. The first of these is, its one less person in a position of responsibility over the server. You know the admin of the box, as its the admin of the ircd. If someone has a shell account, you can't rely on the scruples of the box admin (unfortunately). Also, a person with administrative access to the machine has more bandwidth/data transfer available to them and is less likely to be cut off from their provider if DDOS occurs (which we have to admit on all irc networks, it does at some point) and because a user who is root has access to configure firewall rules using iptables or ipfwadm etc. One of our admins even has access to the router which connects his network to the internet and if required could even implement router policies to eat a DDOS.

We are not a 'large' network (approx 2200 users peak) but we do think big at all times, because growth on irc is generally unpredictable, and like businesses all irc networks must think towards the future at all times, lest they be lost in the past.

As mentioned in a previous post we also run other processes such as BOPM, which can eat a lot of ram with DNS caches. Imagine yourself as the admin of some (probably very cheap) freebsd based ircd hosting shell company (you know the sort, a box locked down beyond belief hosting 50 ircds on one box, where all users processes are hidden from each other so you dont know how overloaded the box really is) and seeing a 50mb bin/bopm process running, your first instinct is to kill -9 it, then ask questions later. If the owner of the box is the irc admin of the server, they will have been trained not to do this Smile

Also as previously stated administrating a remote machine takes much more linux/freebsd knowledge than just owning a shell account. Anyone with a day of experience can compile an ircd to a shell account but successfully securing and keeping a whole box running is a completley different kettle of fish.

Just my two pence worth :p

Thanks,
Brain

systat · Newbie Joined: 16 Nov 2003 Posts: 61 Location: USA