Nothing to see here folks. Move along…
This is like a bad episode of "Groundhog Day" meets "Back To the Future."
You know, when you wake every day to the same daymare where one person’s touting that features like NAC are the next flux capacitor while another compares its utility to that of sandpaper in the toilet roll dispensers in a truck stop restroom?
I know Internet blog debates like this get me more excited than having my nipples connected to jumper cables and being waterboarded whilst simultaneously shocked with 1.21 Jigawatts…
Alan Shimel’s post ("Stiennon says NAC is dead – I must be in heaven!") in response to Stiennon’s entry ("Don’t even bother investing in Network Admission Control") is hysterical.
Why?
Because it’s the exact arguments (here and here) they had back in August 2007 when I refereed (see below) the squabble the first time around and demonstrated convincingly how they were both right and both wrong. The silly little squabble — like most things — is all a matter of perspective.
I’d suggest that if you want a quick summary of the arguments without having to play blog pong, you can just read my summary from last year, as none of their arguments have changed.
/Hoff
P.S. The German word "himmel" translates to "heaven" (and sky) in English…funny given Shimmy’s post title, methinks…
