[bcop] [ipv6-wg] BCOP presentation at RIPE meeting in Warsaw

Jen Linkova furry13 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 16:50:36 CEST 2014


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Benedikt Stockebrand
<bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote:.
>>> However I believe we could expect even first level support engineer to
>>> be able to run
>>> the well-defined set of commands (such as traceroute, netstat and
>>> ifconfig) - they don't need to
>>> understand the output, just provide it while escalating.
>>>
>>
>> What do others think here? What is your experience with helpdesks and
>> their ability to perform this stuff?
>
> that really depends.  I've seen first level supporters who wouldn't need
> this at such a level because they'd know how to do that anyway

My understanding they are not a target audience of this document ;)

>and I've
> seen ones who would read whatever a flowchart says without understanding
> a single word.

That's why I'd like to make sure that the troubleshooting procedure in
this document could
be presented as a flow chart and all possible scenarios are covered
(even as 'then escalate'),
so first-level support always know what to do.

Re: collecting additional information: my point here is that when
X-level support is escalating to X+1 level,
it's always a good idea to have a well-defined list of what information should
be collected and provided with an escalation request (like attaching
'show tech' to Cisco TAC request :))
It does not mean that escalating engineer has to understand every
single word in the data they are collecting and it
does not mean that the collected information would necessary contain
everything needed to solve the case.
The goal is to cover some common cases (and if somebody would complain
to me about
poor v[46] connectivity from their workstation I personally would ask
for ifconfig, netstat and traceroute before doing anything else ;)

>
> But what's worrying me more is if we can actually come up with a
> one-size-fits-all flowchart that is actually any use to anybody.

I'm sure we can not do 'one-size-fits-all' thing but we could provide
a kind of template which could be customized.

>It might well be that this turns out a completely futile exercise, but the
> only way to find that out is to actually give it a try.

I agree. If I remember correctly, Ragnar mentioned during v6 WG
session that his helpdesk
was pretty happy with this document. So I believe we should get the
draft to a slightly better state and
let people try it in their networks.


-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry



More information about the BCOP mailing list