Hi all,
We have had an organisation come forward with a proposal to host the
Jan/Feb 2008 meeting in the Dominican Republic.
It appears that we can expect hotel costs to be quite a bit lower
than than at most recent NANOG meetings (perhaps as low as $100 per
night). Flights might cost a
On 26-Feb-2007, at 11:39, Cat Okita wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
We would be interested to hear what people think about this idea.
For example:
How would this fit with your corporate travel policies?
Would you be more or less likely to attend a winter meeting in the
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:44:27AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
On 26-Feb-2007, at 11:39, Cat Okita wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
We would be interested to hear what people think about this idea.
For example:
How would this fit with your corporate travel policies?
Would
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Lucy Lynch wrote:
I'd have a much easier time getting them to let me go to LA or SF, simply
because they aren't pervceived as prime vacation destinations, beaches
and all.
No beaches in Santo Domingo (beaches in LA and SF, however)
Are we thinking of the same place?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't go to Toronto (among with some others I know), because 32F in NY
is still better than 10F there. :)
More like 1F. When the mercury climbed to 14F, my windshield washer
fluid thawed (yay!).
... and the weather
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Cat Okita wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Lucy Lynch wrote:
I'd have a much easier time getting them to let me go to LA or SF, simply
because they aren't pervceived as prime vacation destinations, beaches
and all.
No beaches in Santo Domingo (beaches in LA and SF, however)
On Feb 26, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR? Not a lot
of context. DR is also in the LACNIC region. LACNIC has meetings
similiar to RIPE in content i.e. policy and ops.
http://lacnic.net/en/eventos/lacnicix/index.html
LACNIC is
On 26-Feb-2007, at 14:13, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote:
This may or may not be of concern, but what are the requirements
for entry into DR? I'm watching the IETF-prague buildup and there
seems to be a lot of questions regarding 1) health insurance 2)
proof of funds, etc. If we do decide
On Feb 26, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR? Not a lot
of context. DR is also in the LACNIC region. LACNIC has meetings
similiar to RIPE in content i.e. policy and ops.
http://lacnic.net/en/eventos/lacnicix/index.html
On 26-Feb-2007, at 14:39, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 26-Feb-2007, at 13:05, Martin Hannigan wrote:
What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR?
Same as for any other place -- it's a location that we received a
good proposal for.
If you received a proposal to hold one in
On Feb 26, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR? Not a lot
of context. DR is also in the LACNIC region. LACNIC has meetings
similiar to RIPE in content i.e. policy and ops.
On 26-Feb-2007, at 15:43, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I'm saying that you don't
have to have a meeting somewhere because someone will pay.
It's not practical to hold a meeting somewhere that we don't have a
host.
I'm not surprised that you resorted to the strawman argument. I
think it's
On 26-Feb-2007, at 14:09, Rodney Joffe wrote:
Probably the appropriate discussion to have first...
DR is considered Central America, not North America.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/dr.html
There are probably more definitions of North America in circulation
than there
I don't know how many people that attended NANOG in Toronto had to go
through the international travel approval that some of us had to.
probably not the canadians.
this is NAnog, not USnog, so that's just gonna be a fact of life.
perhaps we saw a huge attendance dip at Toronto
the opposite
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:43:40AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
perhaps we saw a huge attendance dip at Toronto
the opposite
even for non-canada source? i'm sure we saw .ca spike, but did
we see .us dip?
i have no idea and don't care. aside from their strange habit of
saying eh every so
On 26-Feb-2007, at 17:39, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:21:31AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
I don't know how many people that attended NANOG in Toronto had
to go
through the international travel approval that some of us had to.
probably not the canadians.
this is NAnog, not
Is the question really, should NANOG be held outside the US/Canada?
I put the answer to that as Yes.
There is no reason why NANOG should continue to be held in the US/Canada.
As for 'getting' approval, why should it matter if NANOG is held in St. Louis,
Toronto or the DR? Maybe people worried
In geographical terms all of the land that is north of South America, ie the
border between Columbia and Panama and all of the islands of the Caribbean and
the islands north of the Antilles are North America. There are numerous
categorizations of the countries that are south of the US and
Joe Abley wrote:
Can I suggest that the most practical approach to deal with the
question at hand is not to dwell on geopolitics, but instead to
address the original question: would attending a meeting in the
Dominican Republic involve undue hardship to the community, or
perhaps be
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
On the one hand, I have to say that if it's my own money, it's not going
to happen. It's just too far away (for me). Not considering the plane
fare, though, I don't think it's necessarily a bad suggestion. I *do*
wonder where all the attendees will
joe, all,
sorry to come late to the conversation.
We would be interested to hear what people think about this idea. For
example:
How would this fit with your corporate travel policies?
small company, no problem.
Would you be more or less likely to attend a winter meeting in the
One other item to think about, getting Visas to the US is not as easy for
people from some countries. Maybe this is why you saw an increase in Canada.
http://www.traveldailynews.com/new.asp?newid=35191subcategory_id=96
Among the major reasons why travelers are not coming to the U.S.: concerns
all,
LACNIC is not the equivalent of NANOG any more than ARIN is.
According to http://lacnic.net/en/sobre-lacnic/cobertura/
index.html, LACNIC covers Mexico. If a meeting were suggested in
Mexico, would you say NANOG should not meet there because LACNIC
has meetings there?
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:42:00PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
One of the reasons why these spots are in the LACNIC region
is language. They don't speak english.
OH MY GHOD! HEATHENS! let's bomb them quickly.
We already did
seriously? my family in santo domingo never
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:42:00PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
One of the reasons why these spots are in the LACNIC region
is language. They don't speak english.
OH MY GHOD! HEATHENS! let's bomb them quickly.
We already did
seriously? my family in santo
On Feb 26, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Incorrect. I think that there are more than just philanthropic
considerations and language is one, as well as financials
being another.
I believe the majority of the list is in agreement.
We all agree that there is more to this than going
Gadi,
Can you elaborate a bit on what universities have done which would be
relevant to service providers here?
Generally, we've found that most end users don't even know that their systems
are infected - be it with spyware, bots, etc - and are happy when we can help
them clear things up as
I am a network engineer for Midcontinent Communications We are an ISP in
the American Midwest. Recently, we were allocated a new network
assignment: 96.2.0.0/16. We've been having major issues with sites still
blocking this network. I normally wouldn't blanket post to the group, but
I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Ortega wrote:
I am a network engineer for Midcontinent Communications We are an ISP in
the American Midwest. Recently, we were allocated a new network
assignment: 96.2.0.0/16. We've been having major issues with sites still
blocking this
After I sent that mail I realized that I didn't give enough information.
96.2.0.1 is pingable from the net.
Thank you all for your quick response!
-Original Message-
From: James Blessing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:28 AM
To: Eric Ortega
Cc:
We found out last Thursday we were blocking that range (our customer base is
across the state line from this Midcon). Our upstream internet provider,
who manages the BGP side of things, had had their automated Bogon update
process stalled since last fall. =)
Frank
I am a network engineer for Midcontinent Communications We are an ISP in
the American Midwest. Recently, we were allocated a new network
assignment: 96.2.0.0/16. We've been having major issues with sites still
blocking this network. I normally wouldn't blanket post to the group, but
I'm
We found out last Thursday we were blocking that range (our customer base is
across the state line from this Midcon). Our upstream internet provider,
who manages the BGP side of things, had had their automated Bogon update
process stalled since last fall. =)
frank, could your links be in
Randy:
Sorry, our upstream provider's ASN is not listed in that
filter-candidates.txt document.
Kind regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 4:34 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: 96.2.0.0/16
i know its all the rage to post/shame the offending parties (those whois
filtering
policies don't reflect our own) - BUT - how hard would it be for you perl
jocks
to publish the ASNs of the good guys
--bill
i know its all the rage to post/shame the offending parties (those
whois filtering policies don't reflect our own)
bull
we are trying to validate experimental results. sorry if that
offends you or you do your research result validation differently.
randy
I'm told {by atlantech.net} that L3 is wounded in the east-central
region; i.e. DC-NYC at least...
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433
is
37 matches
Mail list logo
