Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Chris Malayter wrote: Kris, Could you outline the changes for those who might not have seen the original bylaws yet. http://newnog.org/docs/newnog-bylaws.pdf Should be painless to match up the lines below with the sections above. If it's not, I'm happy to repost the draft with the original language inline. Two issues I have, 1) The ED has to be a member in good standing? So he has to pay to be a member to keep his job? :) This requirement also exists implicitly since board members are required to be members in good standing. The 7th seat on the board is held by the ED. Administratively, I'd expect they will be expensing their membership, but this is outside the WG's mandate. 2) I'm not sure how happy I am to see student memberships gone. I like the idea that a student could pay a reduced fee to be a member, yes I do realize that the student can still attend the meeting without membership. It's not really a deal closer for me. I want to see students receive a break as well. The fee structure has been moved out of the bylaws and into the hands of the board to craft and the current board appears to be sympathetic to students. We'll need to wait for them to release their plan. For what it's worth. -Chris On Oct 26, 2010, at 6:06 PM, kris foster wrote: The Membership WG has created a new draft for the community to review and discuss. This draft is not intended to be language for bylaw amendment. Once general consensus is reached on the membership policies work will begin on writing language for bylaw amendment where necessary. The subsections contain notation in parentheses indicating which section of the bylaws are related or already have relevant language. For the purpose of simplifying discussion it should be assumed that section 5 (membership) of the bylaws do not exist. For the Membership WG Kris Foster, chair NewNOG Membership Policy Draft 1.0 Definition of membership 1.1 (Consistent with B3) Members of NewNOG are those individuals who have a demonstrated interest in Internet network operations and have met all necessary requirements set forth in the organization’s bylaws. 2.0 Member rights 2.1 (B8.4) Members have the right to elect individuals to the Board of Directors. 2.1.1 (B8.4.1) Members have the right to nominate individuals as candidates for the filling seats on the Board of Directors. 2.1.2 (B8.4.1) Members have the right to post endorsements of candidates to the NewNOG website, or alongside candidate biographies. 2.2 (B8.4.1 for BoD) Members have the right to nominate for positions on committees set out in the bylaws, or committees that the Board of Directors may create from time-to-time. 2.3 (B14) Members have the right to put forward proposals for ballot propositions that meet the necessary criteria set out in the bylaws. 2.4 (new) Members have the right to participate in governance related functions, forums, and working groups created by the Board of Directors and open to general membership participation. 2.7 (B8.8) Members may remove a sitting Director by a super majority vote of the membership. 3.0 Member privileges 3.1 (B8.9) Only members in good standing may hold a seat on the Board of Directors. 3.1.1 (B8.4) Only members in good standing may be nominated to serve on the Board of Directors. 3.2 (B9) Only members in good standing may hold positions as officers of the corporation. 3.3 (B9) Only members in good standing may hold positions in the corporation’s committees. 3.4 (new) Members are entitled to any benefits approved by the Board of Directors. 3.5 (new) Member benefits shall be published on the NewNOG web site. 3.6 (new) Section 3.3 will come into force for all those appointed after the transition from Merit to NewNOG has completed in its entirety. 4.0 Membership requirements 4.1 (new) Members are required to be active within the Internet network operations community by way of current employment or previous employment if retired, participation in industry forums, academic instruction or scholarship, or volunteer positions. 4.1.1 (new) Members are required to maintain membership dues as set out by the Board of Directors and approved by the membership. 4.1.2 (new) Members must be individuals and may not be organizations of any form. 4.1.3 (new) New memberships will be approved by vote at a meeting of the Board of Directors. 4.4 (new) Directors, officers, and committee members must rectify any lapse in good standing within thirty days. 4.4.1 (new) Committee members who fail to regain good standing within 30 days will become inactive and may be removed from the committee at the discretion of the Board of Directors. 4.4.2 (new) Directors who fail to regain good standing within 30 days may be replaced by an interim director at the
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
Kris, Could you outline the changes for those who might not have seen the original bylaws yet. Two issues I have, 1) The ED has to be a member in good standing? So he has to pay to be a member to keep his job? :) 2) I'm not sure how happy I am to see student memberships gone. I like the idea that a student could pay a reduced fee to be a member, yes I do realize that the student can still attend the meeting without membership. It's not really a deal closer for me. For what it's worth. -Chris ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students. Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students. That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student membership didn't survive. I think the educational mission is extremely important from both an altruistic and a business point of view (business == our real businesses, not NANOG). - Dan On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Chris Malayter ch...@terahertz.net wrote: Kris, Could you outline the changes for those who might not have seen the original bylaws yet. Two issues I have, 1) The ED has to be a member in good standing? So he has to pay to be a member to keep his job? :) 2) I'm not sure how happy I am to see student memberships gone. I like the idea that a student could pay a reduced fee to be a member, yes I do realize that the student can still attend the meeting without membership. It's not really a deal closer for me. For what it's worth. -Chris ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
4.1 (new) Members are required to be active within the Internet network operations community by way of current employment or previous employment if retired, participation in industry forums, academic instruction or scholarship, or volunteer positions. How does this affect people who lose their jobs, become managers or otherwise are no longer network operators but not retired ? What happens if somebody is no longer employed as an operator but gets in under the community participation criteria and then cuts back on their participation for various reasons (illness perhaps)? I assume this was put in to stop NANOG being taken over by a group of Orchid lovers [1] but in future will people going to be denied membership because they are not a real Network Operator or even lose their membership when they are fired? [1] - http://www.nativeorchids.co.nz/nznog.htm vs http://www.nznog.org/ -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ To stay awake all night adds a day to your life - Stilgar | eMT. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
You can have student pricing and members without needing a separate class of membership. Education is useful even for existing network engineers. Leslie On 10/27/10 12:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students. Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students. That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student membership didn't survive. I think the educational mission is extremely important from both an altruistic and a business point of view (business == our real businesses, not NANOG). - Dan On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Chris Malayter ch...@terahertz.net mailto:ch...@terahertz.net wrote: Kris, Could you outline the changes for those who might not have seen the original bylaws yet. Two issues I have, 1) The ED has to be a member in good standing? So he has to pay to be a member to keep his job? :) 2) I'm not sure how happy I am to see student memberships gone. I like the idea that a student could pay a reduced fee to be a member, yes I do realize that the student can still attend the meeting without membership. It's not really a deal closer for me. For what it's worth. -Chris ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org mailto:Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students. Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students. That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student membership didn't survive. I think the educational mission is extremely important from both an altruistic and a business point of view (business == our real businesses, not NANOG). This was an area where the WG had quite a bit of discussion, and student discounts never got unanimous support. NewNOG is not a student organization that is supported by obligatory student (college) fees that, in turn, fund the organization. It is not an organization that targets students as part of it's mission, not a student outreach organization. NewNOG is a not-for-profit organization formed to provide a set of mailing lists, and organize events, such as semi-annual conferences. When we were discussing the fee structure in August and September, I used this argument, and nobody could offer me a convincing counter argument. My argument was... If we are offering a fellow membership for someone that has contributed a extraordinary amount to the community, then are we saying that students are more important to the community than people that would be regular members? That students contribute more to the value of NewNOG than people that are not students? It seems that the main reason why people are pushing for a student discount is because they assume that students can't afford it. But, I counter that many of the students that I went to school with had no problem spending $100 or more a week on beer. $100 a year for membership does not seem like a barrier to their participation. I would be more willing to support a hardship discount than a student discount because I don't believe that the value of student contributions to be more than that or someone that has a low income, but is also not a student. I would say that someone should be able to get discount on their membership if they otherwise qualify, but make less than $X per year. Many full time students would probably qualify for this. Of course, we would need to see some proof that they qualify before we accept it. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
-Original Message- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:15 PM To: Sean Figgins Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote: If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee. If they did wish to remain a member of NewNOG, however, I'm not sure why NewNOG should say no. I would strike the whole of 4.1. I see no reason for it. If orchid enthusiasts want to join NANOG, let them join. +1 I don't think we have the resources as a volunteer/community-led organization to vet every new member, a la the IEEE. The community is completely open now and it's been successful. I don't see why we wouldn't have that same inclusivity in the new organization. Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: -Original Message- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:15 PM To: Sean Figgins Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote: If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee. If they did wish to remain a member of NewNOG, however, I'm not sure why NewNOG should say no. I would strike the whole of 4.1. I see no reason for it. If orchid enthusiasts want to join NANOG, let them join. +1 I don't think we have the resources as a volunteer/community-led organization to vet every new member, a la the IEEE. The community is completely open now and it's been successful. I don't see why we wouldn't have that same inclusivity in the new organization. Difference being the Merit purse was not immediately available to the community. I see things like this as a fail safe, and not a requirement that the board consider each individual individually. Kris ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
-Original Message- From: kris foster [mailto:kris.fos...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:50 PM To: Sean Figgins Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Sean Figgins wrote: On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students. Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students. That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student membership didn't survive. I think the educational mission is extremely important from both an altruistic and a business point of view (business == our real businesses, not NANOG). This was an area where the WG had quite a bit of discussion, and student discounts never got unanimous support. NewNOG is not a student organization that is supported by obligatory student (college) fees that, in turn, fund the organization. It is not an organization that targets students as part of it's mission, not a student outreach organization. NewNOG is a not-for-profit organization formed to provide a set of mailing lists, and organize events, such as semi-annual conferences. The mission includes education and outreach to the academic community. If students are not implied, then maybe we're working on different definitions of some of these words. 3. Mission The purpose of NewNOG is to provide forums in the North American region for education and the sharing of knowledge for the Internet operations community. [snip] NewNOG serves as a bridge between the technical staff of leading Internet providers close to network operations, technical communities such as standards bodies, and the academic community. I contest this statement. I have never specifically thought of NANOG as an organization specifically for that purpose. Education does not imply students, just people who want to learn. This should imply everyone in the current community. I'm against specifying classes of members. As mentioned in other posts, anyone can attend meetings, even non-member full/part time students. :) -- kris ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Brian Johnson wrote: -Original Message- From: kris foster [mailto:kris.fos...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:50 PM To: Sean Figgins Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Sean Figgins wrote: On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students. Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students. That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student membership didn't survive. I think the educational mission is extremely important from both an altruistic and a business point of view (business == our real businesses, not NANOG). This was an area where the WG had quite a bit of discussion, and student discounts never got unanimous support. NewNOG is not a student organization that is supported by obligatory student (college) fees that, in turn, fund the organization. It is not an organization that targets students as part of it's mission, not a student outreach organization. NewNOG is a not-for-profit organization formed to provide a set of mailing lists, and organize events, such as semi-annual conferences. The mission includes education and outreach to the academic community. If students are not implied, then maybe we're working on different definitions of some of these words. 3. Mission The purpose of NewNOG is to provide forums in the North American region for education and the sharing of knowledge for the Internet operations community. [snip] NewNOG serves as a bridge between the technical staff of leading Internet providers close to network operations, technical communities such as standards bodies, and the academic community. I contest this statement. I have never specifically thought of NANOG as an organization specifically for that purpose. Education does not imply students, just people who want to learn. This should imply everyone in the current community. The above is language copied directly from NewNOG's bylaws. I'm against specifying classes of members. As mentioned in other posts, anyone can attend meetings, even non-member full/part time students. :) The draft policy has a line that separates membership from meetings (even though the current bylaws do not prohibit non-members from attending conferences or subscribing to the mailing list). -- kris ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
Inline. On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Joe Abley wrote: On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote: If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee. If they did wish to remain a member of NewNOG, however, I'm not sure why NewNOG should say no. I would strike the whole of 4.1. I see no reason for it. If orchid enthusiasts want to join NANOG, let them join. Joe and On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: The community is completely open now and it's been successful. I don't see why we wouldn't have that same inclusivity in the new organization. Mike I agree with Joe and Mike. If somebody wants to be a member, we should let them. They don't get to discuss orchids on the list, but they can be a member. bad analogy They didn't kick Willy Mays out of baseball or say he couldn't watch the game, because he didn't play anymore. And if he wanted to serve on a committee, they MIGHT let him. /bad analogy Can I get a memory check on some statements I seem to recall regarding membership from the last two meetings? Since we don't have transcripts. A) We needed to accept _THE IDEA OF PAID MEMBERSHIP_ because we needed to accept the bylaws as written. There was no point in talking about it. B) Paid membership is a fundamental requirement for being an incorporated body/501c3/group with bylaws. C) A major rationale for the idea is the need for immediate funds. D) Dues are projected to be 5% revenues for a while. E) This year is a fine time to discuss changing the bylaws. So while we are discussing what paid membership should be, may we not discuss whether or not we should have paid membership at all? From my perspective, we seem to be permanently accepting an insufficiently good idea along with a lot of really good ideas simply because the former steering committee thought it sounded like a good idea. And handwave we can change it later if we want. I'm sorry, that's backwards. Hence E). Full disclosure. I am a donor/paid member and will continue to be, pretty much regardless of how it all turns out. My quibble is the process of how paid membership came to be, the unconvincing rationale(s) for it and the unseemliness of excluding folks from the club and under which conditions. Disregard the unconvincing rationale bit if either of B or C above is attested to in writing by a member of, I guess it is the Board of Directors now. Although if C is the only rationale, we should IMHO consider sunsetting dues or at least building it into attendance.. Anyway, if we do have to have it, paid membership should be as open as possible. John Springer ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On 10/27/10 2:57 PM, Lynda wrote: On 10/27/2010 1:14 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote: If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee. If they did wish to remain a member of NewNOG, however, I'm not sure why NewNOG should say no. I would strike the whole of 4.1. I see no reason for it. If orchid enthusiasts want to join NANOG, let them join. Okay, here's a test. If I'm willing to pay the fee, may I join? I am asking if I'd be permitted to under the current definition. I don't fancy orchids much, but I have my own Cisco router. Probably. 4.1 is loose enough that those that want to join may join, however I believe it is a good definition. I also believe that membership definition is required for the organization under US non-profit regulation. If we do not have 4.1, then we fall back to 1.1, which basically states the same thing. In order to be a member, you have to have an interest in Network Operations. This is the same spirit, if not the same language. If we do, at some point, have Orchid enthusiasts invading NewNOG, and trying to steer the organization towards their interest, this language allows us to eject those members. Assuming that they don't also meet the Network Operations requirements. Of course, it could be a network of Orchid distributors... People should not sweat this language. It won't really exclude anyone from being a member if they have an interest in being a member. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:39 PM, kris foster wrote: I see things like this as a fail safe, and not a requirement that the board consider each individual individually. I agree with Kris. While I wish that we could simply say that there are no formal qualifications for membership, I think the language is necessary to (1) define membership for legal reasons and (2) as a way for the organization to protect itself from potential outside influences should that ever be necessary. From a practical standpoint I think anyone who wants to become a member will, in all likelihood, be granted membership. DW (speaking only for myself) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
The mission *includes* education and outreach to the academic community is not the same as The mission is education and outreach to the academic community. On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Sean Figgins wrote: On 10/27/10 2:50 PM, kris foster wrote: The mission includes education and outreach to the academic community. If students are not implied, then maybe we're working on different definitions of some of these words. 3. Mission The purpose of NewNOG is to provide forums in the North American region for education and the sharing of knowledge for the Internet operations community. [snip] NewNOG serves as a bridge between the technical staff of leading Internet providers close to network operations, technical communities such as standards bodies, and the academic community. I see nowhere in there that defines that NewNOG is exclusively for the benefit of students. The term for education does not mean exclusively for students. In only means that it is for those that which to be educated or seem knowledge. I see nowhere in the bylaws that state that student membership has a higher value than normal membership that requires it to be discounted. I stand by my position that students should get no more of a discount than someone else that is at an equal or greater hardship. And even then, I am not sure what benefit this brings to the NewNOG organization. If we are so concerned with this, then we should re-evaluate the fees, and set membership at $25/year for everyone. Let's level the field for everyone. I have known full time students that had more money to throw around than full time network engineers with a wife and 3 kids. Where is their parent discount? Even the US government gives assistance to families in hardship conditions. Membership is exclusively for governance. Membership is not required for conference attendance. Students already get a discount for conference attendance. If they want to play in governance, then let them pay the same as everyone else. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On 10/27/10 3:22 PM, John Springer wrote: So while we are discussing what paid membership should be, may we not discuss whether or not we should have paid membership at all? From my perspective, we seem to be permanently accepting an insufficiently good idea along with a lot of really good ideas simply because the former steering committee thought it sounded like a good idea. And handwave we can change it later if we want. I'm sorry, that's backwards. Hence E). I don't believe the idea of paid membership is up for discussion. In fact, the idea of membership is not up for discussion, and really neither is the idea of what the membership fees are going to be. It is not going to stop anyone, including myself, from discussing it. We needed some way to determine who is a membership for GOVERNANCE or NewNOG. The membership needs to be separated from conference attendance. Some of this is required by US regulations, some of it is required for other reasons. Conference attendance was never a good way to determine who was a member, and who had the right to vote. Most conference attendees never had any interest in never had an interest in the governance of NANOG (and won't of NewNOG by extension). However, there are quite a few people that have an interest in the governance of NewNOG that are unable to attend the conferences in person for financial reasons. The paid membership accomplishes the following things: 1) It provides a list of individuals that are interested in the GOVERNANCE of NewNOG 2) It provides for separation between those interested in GOVERNANCE and those just wanting to socialize at the conference. 3) It includes those that can't attend the conferences in person. Remember that you can watch from home almost as well as you can attend. 4) It provides some initial start-up costs for NewNOG. Membership will only be 5% of the yearly revenue after the first year. Between now and the end of the year, it is 100%. Next year, is will become less. The definition in 4.1 of the proposal is not excluding anyone that wants to be part of NewNOG or NANOG. In fact, is specifically INCLUDES them. 4.1 (new) Members are required to be active within the Internet network operations community by way of current employment or previous employment if retired, participation in industry forums, academic instruction or scholarship, or volunteer positions. I would count participation in NANOG as participation in industry forums. NewNOG as well. The language good and should not be changes. No change is needed, as it does not keep anyone out that wants to be in. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Sean Figgins s...@labrats.us wrote:
On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students.
That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student
membership didn't survive. I think the educational mission is extremely
important from both an altruistic and a business point of view (business
== our real businesses, not NANOG).
{snip}
It seems that the main reason why people are pushing for a student
discount is because they assume that students can't afford it. But, I
counter that many of the students that I went to school with had no
problem spending $100 or more a week on beer. $100 a year for
membership does not seem like a barrier to their participation.
See, there's your logical fallacy - you are expecting students to prioritize
NANOG over beer :)
-Sean
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On 10/27/10 1:57 PM, Lynda wrote: Okay, here's a test. If I'm willing to pay the fee, may I join? I am asking if I'd be permitted to under the current definition. I don't fancy orchids much, but I have my own Cisco router. Sure. You don't even need to use the router for anything other than a doorstop. Some of them make nice heaters. ;-) I see this as being pretty much something that the member defines as his/her reason for joining. If the prospective member feels that they have an interest due to employment, previous employment (I agree that if retired can go away), participation in industry forums, academic instruction or scholarship, or volunteer positions, then fine. Reading mailing lists, netnews, etc. would be enough, but it's up to the member to make the call. There isn't a test, investigation, or vetting. The member decides if they have an interest and understands the reason for membership. This language discourages someone from signing up and then demanding their money back because there isn't enough content regarding orchids. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote: [snip] There isn't a test, investigation, or vetting. The member decides if they have an interest and understands the reason for membership. If there isn't vetting, why does the board approve membership? No other nonprofit [advocacy, professional, charity] to which I either belong or contribute has this kind of barrier to taking my money. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On 10/27/10 6:32 PM, Joe Provo wrote: When we were discussing the fee structure in August and September, I used this argument, and nobody could offer me a convincing counter argument. My argument was... If we are offering a fellow membership for someone that has contributed a extraordinary amount to the community, then are we saying that students are more important to the community than people that would be regular members? That students contribute more to the value of NewNOG than people that are not students? Growing the base. As a community, we routinely gripe about the existing training (both the now-extant academic track and vendor-specific in workplaces) and from where the next generation will come. Seems that directly engaging thw student population is better than indirectly hoping that the right moths are attracted to our flames. None of this has anything to do with GOVERNANCE. Growing the community is fine. I see no more value in students being members of the GOVERNANCE function of a corporation than I see anyone else. I'm not saying that they don't have value. I am saying that they have no more or less value than anyone that has to pay full rate. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On 10/27/10 6:44 PM, Joe Provo wrote: If there isn't vetting, why does the board approve membership? No other nonprofit [advocacy, professional, charity] to which I either belong or contribute has this kind of barrier to taking my money. The board does not need to vote if we don't want it. Let's strike that part of the proposal. Make both the new membership AND the cancellation of inactive memberships after 12 months automatic, and not dependent on the BoD at all. The intention for the language for the approval and discretion of the BoD is not to have them vet each membership application, only to have them do a bulk approval. If this is not needed, then this can be be removed from the proposal. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On 10/27/10 10:11 PM, John Springer wrote: Sorry, not to be dense, but what? I believe it is all up for discussion. Or is that code for shut up? It is already decided and voted upon. Our mission at this point is to determine what this will look like and try to reach a consensus. It is too late to unring the bell of transitioning to NewNOG. There is no point now or pissing and moaning about the process that got us to this point if there is nothing that can be done about it. Let's get to the point of defining the paid membership and stop trying to analyze the process that got us here. We needed some way to determine who is a membership for GOVERNANCE or NewNOG. The membership needs to be separated from conference attendance. Why exactly is that? So someone can govern the corporation. The mailing list is not going to fund itself out of thin air. The federal regulations require that there be members of the organization, at least this is my understanding of what has been presented. I am not a corporate lawyer, but I can ask some. I believe that these types of questions have already been asked, and this is why they were put into the initial bylaws written by the lawyer. Some of this is required by US regulations, Citations greatly appreciated. As a lawyer. I have only second hand knowledge. some of it is required for other reasons. Such as? I believed I detailed those below, and you replied to them. Conference attendance was never a good way to determine who was a member, and who had the right to vote. According to whom? But nevertheless, fine. Let's vote on it. Oh wait, we disenfranchised ourselves. Never mind. But wait! I bought a refranchise. Let's Vote! Your sarcasm is noted, but not helpful. This was the directive that we were given. Good, bad or indifferent, it was the directive that we were given, and the direction we took. I believe it is important also, as it separates those that don't want to worry about the governance of the organization, and those that want to reap the benefits of the activities the corporate organization sponsors. Fair enough. So that if the idea of paid membership _WAS_ put to a vote, only those interested in governance would have voted? Would that have been bad? I'm sorry, I believe the bylaws were put to a vote, along with the initiative to move forward with transition to NewNOG. I believe those that were present and eligible to vote, and cared to vote, voted for it. If they didn't, then I don't understand why we are even at this point. It was not a line-item vote. Most people don't get that in life. So these folks have never been able to vote. Let's fix that. But then, they have lost nothing. So far, in fact, they might have gained something at the expense of the previous enfranchisees. Women in the beginning of the last century never had the right to vote. Other minorities didn't either. I guess your argument is that they didn't need to have the right to vote, as they would not have lost anything if they never got it. But the problem is... They wanted the right to vote. They were part of the community, and their opinions were just as valid as anyone's. 1) It provides a list of individuals that are interested in the GOVERNANCE of NewNOG And what use is going to be made of that? Straw man, can of worms. Defining the individuals that are interested in governance is actually a way to enfranchise those that are interested, and protect the interest of the organization by making it more difficult to stuff the ballot box. If we allow votes from both conference attendees and people that don't attend a conference, then what is to stop someone from stuffing the ballot? Having a list of voters is a good thing. It ensures that we don't end up with things like fake people, or dead people, from voting. Even the US government makes voters register and doesn't want the undead to vote. 2) It provides for separation between those interested in GOVERNANCE and those just wanting to socialize at the conference. Seriously? Why is separation a good thing? This statement sounds a bit exclusionary. IIRC, there is a bit of a social swirl around Congress? Constituents, and all that. Oh, you want to vote? Pay up, poll tax. Again, this was a directive that w were given, but it is also on that I agree with. Only 5% of the people that attend a conference is interested in the business of NANOG (and NewNOG). I am not checking numbers, but I believe it is close to this. The other 95% are either ineligible to vote, are first time attendees that are unlikely to come back, or just don't care about it. Those people don't need to have their time wasted with the business side of things. It is an exclusion, but it is a self exclusion. If a person is not interested, they don't have to be bothered by it. If they are interested, then they can join in. It makes both conference attendance and
Re: Tools for teaching users online safety
On 27/10/10 3:01 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: Also the FTC has set up a comprehensive site to protect kids, including a guide for parents on kid's use of social networks. http://www.onguardonline.gov/ The Australian version has kids, parents and libraries as the primary focus: http://www.cybersmart.gov.au/ I'm sure it's pretty similar otherwise (except for the links to report offensive websites for the national blacklist). Regards, Ben signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Tools for teaching users online safety
Also the FTC has set up a comprehensive site to protect kids, including a guide for parents on kid's use of social networks. http://www.onguardonline.gov/ Other places to look are http://www.safeinternet.org/ and http://www.saferinternet.org/. Yes, these are different organisations. jaap
Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: I think ARIN is now doing sparse allocations on /28 boundaries. Yes (two NANOG messages attached from earlier this month) /John Begin forwarded message: From: John Curran jcur...@arin.net Date: October 18, 2010 2:55:49 PM EDT To: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org Cc: North American Network Operators Group nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:18 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote: ARIN does reservations (unsure at what length, but at least down to /31). Do they still do that? Back when I was at IANA, one of the justifications the RIRs gave for the /12s they received was that they were going to be using the 'bisection' method of allocation which removes the need for reservation. Last I heard, APNIC was using the bisection method... ARIN is doing the same (the 'bisection' method) with our IPv6 management since January 2010: we refer to the sparse allocation approach and it was requested by the community during the ARIN/NANOG Dearborn meeting. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: From: John Curran jcur...@arin.net Date: October 18, 2010 8:14:18 PM EDT To: North American Network Operators Group nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their nearest neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close considering there is a lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and there doesn't seem to be consensus yet. For these customers, I don't think they will need more than a /29, but if we collectively decide that a /28 is the next step from a /32, how will the older allocations be dealt with? This is pretty much a rhetorical question at this point, and I suppose the proper thing to do is to channel these questions toward the PPML for discussion as potential policy. Just for reference regarding existing IPv6 sparse practice: Our current plan is to use the sparse allocation block (currently a /14) until we fill it up. Bisection done at the /28 boundary which leaves a fairly large reserve. If an organization needs an allocation larger than a /28, we have set aside a /15 block for those larger ISPs. The orgs that already have allocations (/32s from /29s) also have a reserve. If they need additional space, they can either request from their /29 reserve, or if they need more than a /29, can request a new block. Obviously, this can be changed if the community wishes it so. Bring any obvious suggestions to the ARIN suggestion process, and anything which might be contentious or affect allocations to the policy process. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
NSF.gov Unavailable
Um, down for everyone reports it as down for everyone. Any news as to what may be causing it? Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
RE: NSF.gov Unavailable
I think they had a fire in the building. --Samuel -- Samuel Petreski Sr. Security Analyst Georgetown University -Original Message- From: Ernie Rubi [mailto:erne...@cs.fiu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:46 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: NSF.gov Unavailable Um, down for everyone reports it as down for everyone. Any news as to what may be causing it? Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
Re: NSF.gov Unavailable
http://www.arlnow.com/2010/10/27/nsf-building-evacuated-in-ballston-after-apparent-lightning-strike/ lightning strike - electrical fire -Dave On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Samuel Petreski wrote: I think they had a fire in the building. --Samuel -- Samuel Petreski Sr. Security Analyst Georgetown University -Original Message- From: Ernie Rubi [mailto:erne...@cs.fiu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:46 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: NSF.gov Unavailable Um, down for everyone reports it as down for everyone. Any news as to what may be causing it? Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
RE: NSF.gov Unavailable
http://www.arlnow.com/2010/10/27/nsf-building-evacuated-in-ballston- after-apparent-lightning-strike/ lightning strike - electrical fire -Dave At the science foundation. Nature has a sense of irony.
Ethernet performance tests
Hello everyone, I am looking for performance test methodology for ethernet-based circuits. These ethernet circuits can be: dark-fiber, l2circuit (martini), l2vpn (kompella), vpls or ng-vpls. Sometimes, the ethernet circuit can be a mix of these technologies, like below: CPE - metro-e - l2circuit - l2vpn - l2circuit - metro-e - CPE The goal is verify the performance end-to-end. I am looking for tools that can check at least the following parameters: - loss - latency - jitter - bandwidth - out-of-order delivery At this moment I have been used IPerf to achieve these results. But I would like to check if there is some test devices that can be used in situations like that to verify the ethernet-based circuit performance. The objective of these tests is to verify the signed SLAs of each circuit before the customer start to use it. I checked all MEF specifications and I only find something related to performance for Circuit Emulation over Metro-E (which is not my case). Appreciate your comments. Thanks! ./diogo -montagner
Re: Ethernet performance tests
many switch and routing vendors provide such functionality in their os. this data can then be collected via SNMP, stored for reports and forwarded as events, when necessary. tate On 10/27/2010 7:32 PM, Diogo Montagner wrote: Hello everyone, I am looking for performance test methodology for ethernet-based circuits. These ethernet circuits can be: dark-fiber, l2circuit (martini), l2vpn (kompella), vpls or ng-vpls. Sometimes, the ethernet circuit can be a mix of these technologies, like below: CPE- metro-e- l2circuit- l2vpn- l2circuit- metro-e- CPE The goal is verify the performance end-to-end. I am looking for tools that can check at least the following parameters: - loss - latency - jitter - bandwidth - out-of-order delivery At this moment I have been used IPerf to achieve these results. But I would like to check if there is some test devices that can be used in situations like that to verify the ethernet-based circuit performance. The objective of these tests is to verify the signed SLAs of each circuit before the customer start to use it. I checked all MEF specifications and I only find something related to performance for Circuit Emulation over Metro-E (which is not my case). Appreciate your comments. Thanks! ./diogo -montagner
RE: Ethernet performance tests
For comissioning testing, you can use a hardware packet generator to send packets to an Ethernet demarcation with a MAC-swap loopback, and analyse the returned traffic. For ongoing performance monitoring, having Y.1731 capable CPE is highly desirable. Jonathon. -Original Message- From: Diogo Montagner [mailto:diogo.montag...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 28 October 2010 12:33 p.m. To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Ethernet performance tests Hello everyone, I am looking for performance test methodology for ethernet-based circuits. These ethernet circuits can be: dark-fiber, l2circuit (martini), l2vpn (kompella), vpls or ng-vpls. Sometimes, the ethernet circuit can be a mix of these technologies, like below: CPE - metro-e - l2circuit - l2vpn - l2circuit - metro-e - CPE The goal is verify the performance end-to-end. I am looking for tools that can check at least the following parameters: - loss - latency - jitter - bandwidth - out-of-order delivery At this moment I have been used IPerf to achieve these results. But I would like to check if there is some test devices that can be used in situations like that to verify the ethernet-based circuit performance. The objective of these tests is to verify the signed SLAs of each circuit before the customer start to use it. I checked all MEF specifications and I only find something related to performance for Circuit Emulation over Metro-E (which is not my case). Appreciate your comments. Thanks! ./diogo -montagner This email and attachments: are confidential; may be protected by privilege and copyright; if received in error may not be used,copied, or kept; are not guaranteed to be virus-free; may not express the views of Kordia(R); do not designate an information system; and do not give rise to any liability for Kordia(R).
Re: NSF.gov Unavailable
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us wrote: http://www.arlnow.com/2010/10/27/nsf-building-evacuated-in-ballston- after-apparent-lightning-strike/ lightning strike - electrical fire At the science foundation. Nature has a sense of irony. The real irony is that the folks who brought you the NSFnet apparently didn't get the memo vis-a-vis geographic diversity in one's secondary nameservers (rfc 2182 et al). Always good for a few yuks when ill-mannered MTAs start getting unhappy and dropping mail on the floor rather than queueing because they can't resolve the name rather than can't can't connect to the destination (which just about everyone handles fairly well). nsf.gov.86400 IN NS swirl.nsf.gov. nsf.gov.86400 IN NS TWISTER.nsf.gov. nsf.gov.86400 IN NS WHIRL.nsf.gov. ;; Received 139 bytes from 66.207.175.172#53(f.usadotgov.net) in 70 ms dig: couldn't get address for 'WHIRL.nsf.gov': not found % This happened to the University of Eastern Kentucky a couple of years back during the floods there, and I'm sure it happens to other lower-profile sites on a daily basis. I think there is a lesson in here for the community. Drive Slow, Paul
Re: Ethernet performance tests
We dispatch a technician to an end-site and perform tests either head-head with another test set, or to a loop at a far-end.. We do ITU-T Y.156sam/EtherSAM and/or RFC2544 tests depending on the customer requirements. (some customers require certain tests for x minutes) http://www.exfo.com/en/Products/Products.aspx?Id=370 ^--All of our technicians are equipped with those EXFO sets and that module. Also covers SONET/DS1/DS3 testing as well in a single easy(er) to carry set.. -- Tim On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Diogo Montagner diogo.montag...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone, I am looking for performance test methodology for ethernet-based circuits. These ethernet circuits can be: dark-fiber, l2circuit (martini), l2vpn (kompella), vpls or ng-vpls. Sometimes, the ethernet circuit can be a mix of these technologies, like below: CPE - metro-e - l2circuit - l2vpn - l2circuit - metro-e - CPE The goal is verify the performance end-to-end. I am looking for tools that can check at least the following parameters: - loss - latency - jitter - bandwidth - out-of-order delivery At this moment I have been used IPerf to achieve these results. But I would like to check if there is some test devices that can be used in situations like that to verify the ethernet-based circuit performance. The objective of these tests is to verify the signed SLAs of each circuit before the customer start to use it. I checked all MEF specifications and I only find something related to performance for Circuit Emulation over Metro-E (which is not my case). Appreciate your comments. Thanks! ./diogo -montagner
Re: Ethernet performance tests
On 10/27/2010 8:54 PM, Tim Jackson wrote: We do ITU-T Y.156sam/EtherSAM and/or RFC2544 tests depending on the customer requirements. (some customers require certain tests for x minutes) +1 Think JDSU also has some nice boxes. There's a few rack systems you can use which can either generate packets or provide a home base loop system for the end node test sets depending on your requirements. Jack
Re: Ethernet performance tests
Exfo, JDSU, Fluke all offer hand held test sets that can run a rfc2544 ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt) test. Do you own the path between cpe - cpe? Remeber that for each km of fiber distance add about 4.9ms (one way) of latency. Do basline tests on your cpe gear so you know what you are working with from the being. Different tests at different speeds/cpe hand off (1Gig fiber, 10Gig fiber, Copper @ 10/100/1000) so that all varations are captured. Did this at a pervious company, had to test everything in everything deployable state. On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Tim Jackson jackson@gmail.com wrote: We dispatch a technician to an end-site and perform tests either head-head with another test set, or to a loop at a far-end.. We do ITU-T Y.156sam/EtherSAM and/or RFC2544 tests depending on the customer requirements. (some customers require certain tests for x minutes) http://www.exfo.com/en/Products/Products.aspx?Id=370 ^--All of our technicians are equipped with those EXFO sets and that module. Also covers SONET/DS1/DS3 testing as well in a single easy(er) to carry set.. -- Tim On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Diogo Montagner diogo.montag...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone, I am looking for performance test methodology for ethernet-based circuits. These ethernet circuits can be: dark-fiber, l2circuit (martini), l2vpn (kompella), vpls or ng-vpls. Sometimes, the ethernet circuit can be a mix of these technologies, like below: CPE - metro-e - l2circuit - l2vpn - l2circuit - metro-e - CPE The goal is verify the performance end-to-end. I am looking for tools that can check at least the following parameters: - loss - latency - jitter - bandwidth - out-of-order delivery At this moment I have been used IPerf to achieve these results. But I would like to check if there is some test devices that can be used in situations like that to verify the ethernet-based circuit performance. The objective of these tests is to verify the signed SLAs of each circuit before the customer start to use it. I checked all MEF specifications and I only find something related to performance for Circuit Emulation over Metro-E (which is not my case). Appreciate your comments. Thanks! ./diogo -montagner -- -Mike Mainer
Re: Ethernet performance tests
Each KM does not ad 4.9ms.. More like ~1msec per 100km... 1/4/msec usually per OEO conversion (depends on the box)... -- Tim On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Mike Mainer mmai...@tekinside.com wrote: Exfo, JDSU, Fluke all offer hand held test sets that can run a rfc2544 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt) test. Do you own the path between cpe - cpe? Remeber that for each km of fiber distance add about 4.9ms (one way) of latency. Do basline tests on your cpe gear so you know what you are working with from the being. Different tests at different speeds/cpe hand off (1Gig fiber, 10Gig fiber, Copper @ 10/100/1000) so that all varations are captured. Did this at a pervious company, had to test everything in everything deployable state. On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Tim Jackson jackson@gmail.com wrote: We dispatch a technician to an end-site and perform tests either head-head with another test set, or to a loop at a far-end.. We do ITU-T Y.156sam/EtherSAM and/or RFC2544 tests depending on the customer requirements. (some customers require certain tests for x minutes) http://www.exfo.com/en/Products/Products.aspx?Id=370 ^--All of our technicians are equipped with those EXFO sets and that module. Also covers SONET/DS1/DS3 testing as well in a single easy(er) to carry set.. -- Tim On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Diogo Montagner diogo.montag...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone, I am looking for performance test methodology for ethernet-based circuits. These ethernet circuits can be: dark-fiber, l2circuit (martini), l2vpn (kompella), vpls or ng-vpls. Sometimes, the ethernet circuit can be a mix of these technologies, like below: CPE - metro-e - l2circuit - l2vpn - l2circuit - metro-e - CPE The goal is verify the performance end-to-end. I am looking for tools that can check at least the following parameters: - loss - latency - jitter - bandwidth - out-of-order delivery At this moment I have been used IPerf to achieve these results. But I would like to check if there is some test devices that can be used in situations like that to verify the ethernet-based circuit performance. The objective of these tests is to verify the signed SLAs of each circuit before the customer start to use it. I checked all MEF specifications and I only find something related to performance for Circuit Emulation over Metro-E (which is not my case). Appreciate your comments. Thanks! ./diogo -montagner -- -Mike Mainer
Re: Ethernet performance tests
Hello everyone!!! Thank you for all answers. These answers are really what I was looking for Regards ./diogo -montagner On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Tim Jackson jackson@gmail.com wrote: Each KM does not ad 4.9ms.. More like ~1msec per 100km... 1/4/msec usually per OEO conversion (depends on the box)... -- Tim On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Mike Mainer mmai...@tekinside.com wrote: Exfo, JDSU, Fluke all offer hand held test sets that can run a rfc2544 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt) test. Do you own the path between cpe - cpe? Remeber that for each km of fiber distance add about 4.9ms (one way) of latency. Do basline tests on your cpe gear so you know what you are working with from the being. Different tests at different speeds/cpe hand off (1Gig fiber, 10Gig fiber, Copper @ 10/100/1000) so that all varations are captured. Did this at a pervious company, had to test everything in everything deployable state. On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Tim Jackson jackson@gmail.com wrote: We dispatch a technician to an end-site and perform tests either head-head with another test set, or to a loop at a far-end.. We do ITU-T Y.156sam/EtherSAM and/or RFC2544 tests depending on the customer requirements. (some customers require certain tests for x minutes) http://www.exfo.com/en/Products/Products.aspx?Id=370 ^--All of our technicians are equipped with those EXFO sets and that module. Also covers SONET/DS1/DS3 testing as well in a single easy(er) to carry set.. -- Tim On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Diogo Montagner diogo.montag...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone, I am looking for performance test methodology for ethernet-based circuits. These ethernet circuits can be: dark-fiber, l2circuit (martini), l2vpn (kompella), vpls or ng-vpls. Sometimes, the ethernet circuit can be a mix of these technologies, like below: CPE - metro-e - l2circuit - l2vpn - l2circuit - metro-e - CPE The goal is verify the performance end-to-end. I am looking for tools that can check at least the following parameters: - loss - latency - jitter - bandwidth - out-of-order delivery At this moment I have been used IPerf to achieve these results. But I would like to check if there is some test devices that can be used in situations like that to verify the ethernet-based circuit performance. The objective of these tests is to verify the signed SLAs of each circuit before the customer start to use it. I checked all MEF specifications and I only find something related to performance for Circuit Emulation over Metro-E (which is not my case). Appreciate your comments. Thanks! ./diogo -montagner -- -Mike Mainer
DSL (or other similar) Connection in Singapore
Hey all, I have an urgent (today/tomorrow) requirement for how to deliver a normal internet service in Singapore... most likely the downtown area. Has anyone got any contacts or links to pricing - also maybe someone who can install a router configured in Australia. I'm looking for a good download limit includes, or flat rate, with static IP a must. Please reply off-list. PS.. I realise this is NANog, but I assume people on this list may service international offices for their organisations. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Arista - Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
Re: DSL (or other similar) Connection in Singapore
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. you have sent a message to me which seems to contain a legal warning on who can read it, or how it may be distributed, or whether it may be archived, etc. i do not accept such email. my mail user agent detected a legal notice when i was opening your mail, and automatically deleted it. so do not expect further response. yes, i know your mail environment automatically added the legal notice. well, my mail environment automatically detected it, deleted it, and sent this message to you. so don't expect a lot of sympathy. and if you choose to work for some enterprise clueless enough to think that they can force this silliness on the world, use gmail, hotmail, ... randy
Re: NSF.gov Unavailable
Ernie Rubi erne...@cs.fiu.edu ðëúá òì éãé: Um, down for everyone reports it as down for everyone. Any news as to what may be causing it? Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
