Re: OOB core router connectivity wish list
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Matthew Petach wrote: Thank goodness ethernet never has problems with negotiation going awry, and coming up with mismatched duplexes, and vendors never had to implement no negotiation-auto in their configs because you couldn't count on everyone's implementations working together just absolutely perfectly the first time on bootup. Yes, it sure is a good thing ethernet never has issues like that which would cripple your ability to get a box up and running at 2am. Has this happened to you with equipment designed and manufactured the past 5 years? For me this was a problem with equipment released around 2000, since 2005-2007 or so I haven't seen a single problem that I can recall. I blame part of this problem on Cisco who was especially bad at handling autoneg. I remember in 1998 when we couldn't even get link up between a 100 meg LE interface on a Sun and a (I believe) 3500XL. We had to use a hub in between to get link at all. Even worse, different port blocks on the 3500XL behaved differently. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: ripe/ncc likes cookies
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.comwrote: Or ask me every time. Sites should not require cookies just to look around. I get it if there's a transaction to be made, but just to look? :-( Especially a site like RIPE! Umm.. Before deciding what sites should or shouldn't be doing, did you actually check WHY they are setting cookies? www.ripe.net sets 2 cookies for me : serverid=ws-www-plone2 wdm_last_run=1358067104394 The first of these is a fairly typical cookie for sites to set, and is normally use for session persistence when load balancing. The second seems to be related to something they are running to check IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and specifically controlling that it only gets run once for each client. That seems to be a perfectly acceptable use of cookies for me, and is something that could not reliably be done any other way. Scott
Re: OOB core router connectivity wish list
On 13/01/2013 07:42, Matthew Petach wrote: PS--while we're at it, can I have a pony? The day that we see good quality trouble-free OOB on all networking kit that everyone is happy about will be the day that vendors shower us with ponies for all. I'm quite sure of it. Nick
Re: De-funding the ITU
On 1/12/2013 11:07 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: The political fallout from the US being seen as a big rich bully taking its wallet and going home is likely not worth the trivial amount of money involved. Relative to the $2M/year IETF budget? Purely for accuracy: Current IETF expenditures are around US$ 5M - 5.5M. The ISOC Direct Contribution Excluding Development is just over US$ 2M: http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/YEF-2012-2015.pdf d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: De-funding the ITU
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:49:59PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work. Care to try to cite an example? R we can't pull out of because NRO needs its slots. I'm not sure that constitutes good work. It's minor ledger-keeping, and that's why it's excluded from the petition. beside the NRO (the real one), DoD and the FCC and NTIA are all invested in a working ITU-R - there is something to be said for products that work outside the US borders as well as within. Shutting down the ITU would be in effect discarding the baby with the bathwater. You're being awfully naive, Fred. It's a 147-year-old, $180M/year baby with a serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down so that it can go back to doing things the way it was before we all showed up. I expect you think you're being sophisticated and taking a nuanced view or some such, but you aren't. Note that the _entire_ congress disagrees with you. Not a single vote in favor of the ITU in S. Con. Res. 50 or H. Con. Res. 127. And if you think that any of the Internet agrees with you, you should take a look at Reddit sometime. it is true that among the public, congress has a lower approval rating than cockroaches (at least according to NPR). I understand a little of your vitriol, but since it is possible to fund -by sector-, there is no good reason to tar the entire Union with the same brush. -Bill /bill
Re: De-funding the ITU
and going home is likely not worth the trivial amount of money involved. Trivial to whom? Is $11M/year trivial relative to the $181M/year ITU budget? Relative to the $2M/year IETF budget? Relative to the $600K/year budget of NANOG? Trivial to the US government, who's appropriating the money, of course. Not trivial to the ITU-R and ITU-D. You know what they are, right? This is as much about funding NANOG and the IETF as it is about removing 7.7% of the ITU's budget. If I were trying to think of a way to totally destroy the effectiveness of the IETF, loading it up with millions of dollars that come with political strings attached would be about the best one I could imagine. Congrats. R's, John
Re: De-funding the ITU
On Jan 13, 2013, at 7:54 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: Since it is possible to fund -by sector-, there is no good reason to tar the entire Union with the same brush. Bill, please read the petition before attempting to comment on it. Again, the petition specifically excludes ITU-R, for exactly the reasons that you and I have both just cited. And if you think it's possible to fund by sector, you're not paying close enough attention, and haven't read the ITU budget documents I provided with the petition. - It's only possible for sector members to fund by sector. - This petition does not address sector members. - It's not possible for governments to fund by sector. - Money is fungible. So, here, have some rope: how would you fund by sector? -Bill
Re: OOB core router connectivity wish list
On 1/13/13 12:12 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Matthew Petach wrote: Thank goodness ethernet never has problems with negotiation going awry, and coming up with mismatched duplexes, and vendors never had to implement no negotiation-auto in their configs because you couldn't count on everyone's implementations working together just absolutely perfectly the first time on bootup. Yes, it sure is a good thing ethernet never has issues like that which would cripple your ability to get a box up and running at 2am. Deployments I've worked on are order of 10^6 managed ports at a time 10^5ish oob ports, auto-negotiation on copper is not a problem that figures in rollouts anymore and hasn't for more than half a decade. Has this happened to you with equipment designed and manufactured the past 5 years? For me this was a problem with equipment released around 2000, since 2005-2007 or so I haven't seen a single problem that I can recall. I blame part of this problem on Cisco who was especially bad at handling autoneg. I remember in 1998 when we couldn't even get link up between a 100 meg LE interface on a Sun and a (I believe) 3500XL. We had to use a hub in between to get link at all. Even worse, different port blocks on the 3500XL behaved differently.
Re: De-funding the ITU
On 1/12/2013 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work. -R is excluded from the petition. (From a number of postings, it appears that many folk haven't noticed that.) I don't know anything about -D. In the interest of adding some core information to the thread, could you provide a brief summary of its job and benefits (with any concerns that are broadly held)? I'm not asking you to defend your views but to provide a most basic tutorial on -D. The more objective the better. Thanks. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: De-funding the ITU
On 1/13/13, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: If I were trying to think of a way to totally destroy the effectiveness of the IETF, loading it up with millions of dollars that come with political strings attached would be about the best one I could imagine. Congrats. Yes, please redirect from ITU-T to ICANN instead G R's, John -- -JH
Re: ripe/ncc likes cookies
--- sc...@doc.net.au wrote: From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au That seems to be a perfectly acceptable use of cookies for me, and is something that could not reliably be done any other way. How many cookies does nanog.org require for you to allow to look at their site? Seems to me it operates very well without them. Job well done NANOG! :-) scott
Re: De-funding the ITU
Even if there were no ITU we'd have to invent one, to paraphrase Voltaire's quip about God. There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee international settlements and other, similar, regulations. And it would probably end up being about the same because who'd be involved but about the same people and organizations (particularly the PTTs et al)? If you sincerely wanted to get rid of the ITU or pieces thereof the only way would be to form some alternative organization, perhaps with different policy and process rules, and use it to supplant them. Actually, no matter how you got rid of the ITU that's what you'd end up with because much of what they do would happen somehow, but without a real plan probably by even worse means like shadowy inter-PTT organizations arising without any accountability or transparency. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: De-funding the ITU
On 1/12/13 10:49 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: ... serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down ... Bill, I don't accept the premise that (a) the settlement free peering model as modernly practiced can not also be characterized as problematic, and that (b) the intents (note the plural) of the states authors of the several policy proposals advanced at wcit are reasonably, or usefully so characterized. Eric
Re: ripe/ncc likes cookies
How many cookies does nanog.org require for you to allow to look at their site? Seems to me it operates very well without them. Job well done NANOG! :-) indeed. i hold the nanog site up as an example in many ways, really functional without cookies, javascript, ... if memory serves, we owe it to brian at merit. randy
Re: De-funding the ITU
Some people have asked about the ITU-D. The -D stands for Development, but it could also stand for Discuss. This is the arm of the ITU that does capacity building and outreach of various sorts. There are four programs in D, including one that focuses on operational aspects and another on training material. There are also study groups in D where regulators and the sort show up to discuss societal aspects of technology. This is an important dialog. It provides us all an opportunity to listen in on where various countries need help, where they have misunderstandings, and what experiences they are having. D does not make standards or regulations. Of course the -D sector is not without its challenges. For one, it tends to take what happens in -T as gospel. That, I believe, is correctable in several different ways. One of those ways would be for them to collaborate more with organizations like this one. Eliot On 1/13/13 7:01 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 1/12/2013 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work. -R is excluded from the petition. (From a number of postings, it appears that many folk haven't noticed that.) I don't know anything about -D. In the interest of adding some core information to the thread, could you provide a brief summary of its job and benefits (with any concerns that are broadly held)? I'm not asking you to defend your views but to provide a most basic tutorial on -D. The more objective the better. Thanks. d/
