Talk:Mainstream Vendor Sites

From NANOG

I can understand why one would say that inclusion is not endorsement. But how about a different angle on this whole thing. After all, there is no point in listing vendors who are important to networks. Who says? What does 'important' mean?

But it does make a lot of sense to list, vendors to whom network operators typically send RFPs. All the vagueness disappears, it is clear that we are not endorsing anybody, and there is a reasonable criteria to determine eligibility. If a vendor cannot get at least one network operator to back them up, then they don't belong on the list.

This also leads to the idea of categorising this directory by catgeory of product. Then you end up with lists for core routers, CPE routers, core ethernet switches, FR/ATM switches, etc., etc. So what if some vendors appear in more than one list. It actually becomes useful to network operators and it is one less reason for people to post grey-area messages to the list. --Mdillon 15:26, 30 August 2006 (GMT)

Subjective and static gobbledegook

"Mainstream" and "important" are meaningless in a FAQ site. Static lists are pointless in a wiki.

This should get replaced with a reference to the Vendors category. Many of the mentioned vendors get referenced as NANOG sponsors, referenced as companies in 'nanog organizations', referenced as the employers of folks in 'nanog people', etc. Therefore the multiply-referenced items should be their own articles and just be categorized. Happy lists are then automatically generated by the categories and there is no need to bicker about who belongs on what list. jzp 22:02, 5 February 2007 (GMT)