Re: Open source Netflow analysis for monitoring AS-to-AS traffic

[Saku Ytti]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 20:10, Steven Bakker  wrote:

> To top it off, both the sFlow and IPFIX specs are sufficiently vague about 
> the meaning of the "frame size", so vendors can implement whatever they want 
> (include/exclude padding, include/exclude FCS). This implies that you 
> shouldn't trust these fields.

I share this concern, but in my experience the market simply does not
care at all what the data means. People happily graph L3 rate from
Junos, and L2 rate from other boxes, using them interchangeably as
well as using them to determine if or not there is congestion.
While in reality, what you really want is L1 speed, so you can
actually see if the interface is full or not. Luckily we are starting
to see more and more devices also support peak-buiffer-util in
previous N seconds, which is far more useful for congestion
monitoring, unfortunately it is not IF-MIB so most will never ever
collect it.

Note, it is possible to get most Juniper gear to report L2 rate like
IF-MIB specifies, but it's a non-standard configuration option,
therefore very rarely used.

I also wholeheartedly agree on inline templates being near peak
insanity. Huge complexity for upside that is completely beyond my
understanding. If I decide to collect a new metric, then punching in
the metric number+name somewhere is the least of my worries. Idea that
the costs are lowered by having machines dynamically determine what is
being collected and monitored is just bizarre. Most of the cost of
starting to collect a new metric is figuring out how it is actionable,
what needs to happen to the metric to trigger a given action, and how
exactly we are extracting value from this action.
Definitely Netflow v9/v10 should have done out-of-band templates, and
left it to operator concern to communicate to the collector what it is
seeing.

Even exceedingly trivial things in v9/v10 entities can be broken for
years and years before anyone notices, like for example the original
sampling entities are deprecated, they are replaced with new entities,
which communicate 'every N packets, sample C packets', this is very
very good, because it allows you to do stateless sampling, while still
filling out export packet with MTU or larger size to keep export PPS
rate same before/after axing cache. However, by the time I was looking
into this, only pmacct correctly understood how to use these entities,
nfcapd and arbor either didn't understand them, or understood them
incorrectly (both were fixed in a timely manner by responsible
maintainers, thank you).

-- 
  ++ytti

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Randy Bush]

> I'm sure that your time was better spent gathering the "credentials"
> in your signature, but I checked the last 20 or so NANOG meetings and
> didn't see a single registration from you, so perhaps stay out of
> things you know literally nothing about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

anne has been a constructive list participant for years

randy

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Ryan Hamel]

Paul,

Anne's opinion is just as valid as the others here. I have also browsed through 
the recent attendee lists and do not see you listed either, pot calling the 
kettle black. Your comments about her email signature and which voices are 
valid here, are not productive. We are allowed to back up and/or side with 
whomever we please, even if it includes the NANOG board, staff, and committee 
members. We are also allowed to call people out on their behavior towards 
others.

Anyway, no one truly knows how many people could have raised the scheduling 
issue with various committee members, the board, staff, or provided feedback 
via the contact form on the website, and who knows it could have come from 
young women. Those voices do not have to come from the mailing list, to be just 
as valid as ours.

Ryan Hamel


From: NANOG  on behalf of Paul WALL 

Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 5:22 PM
To: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when 
clicking links or opening attachments.


Hi, Anne-

I'm sure that your time was better spent gathering the "credentials"
in your signature, but I checked the last 20 or so NANOG meetings and
didn't see a single registration from you, so perhaps stay out of
things you know literally nothing about.

If it weren't for Ilissa, NANOG would not exist in the form that it
does today, and she's done more work on and off the clock driving the
success of the organization and their meetings than she takes credit
for. NANOG, and especially the women that attend NANOG, owe her a
tremendous debt of gratitude. Her opinion, and Tina's response, are
literally the only ones that carry any weight in this thread, period.

--
Drive Slow,

Paul Wall
Rapper, Retired, and Actor
Swishahouse Alum
Author: Get Money, Stay True
Nominated: Best Rap Performance as a Duo or Group
Winner: Best Rap Collaboration
Winner: Best Rap/R Collaboration
Winner: Taste Maker (Style and Trendsetter)
Contributor: Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition for Xbox and PlayStation 2 –
"Sittin' Sidewayz"
Author: The Peoples Champ
Emeritus: Houston University (no degree)


On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 3:24 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure people realize how much crap that staff and the PC get *every 
> > meeting* about the agenda. There's always someone unhappy because this 
> > event wasn't the same, or why was it in this room over here, or OMG Wed 
> > afternoon, etc. Having seen how that sausage gets made, they don't get 
> > enough credit.
>
> Having been the chair of the Asilomar Microcomputer workshop, and the founder 
> and chair of the original Email Deliverability Summits, as well as organizing 
> many legal conferences, I have to say "^^^ this, 1000%."
>
> Furthermore:
>
> > On Mar 28, 2024, at 11:45 AM, Ilissa Miller  wrote:
> >
> > For those that know me, I rarely provide constructive input about NANOG 
> > matters
>
> ..and you haven't here, either.  Pointing fingers and griping about things is 
> not constructive.  If you really care about this issue, then get involved and 
> help change it.
>
> Anne
>
> ---
> Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
> Internet Law & Policy Attorney
> CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP)
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing 
> law)
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
> Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
> Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
>
>
>
>
>

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 3:24 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure people realize how much crap that staff and the PC get *every 
> > meeting* about the agenda. There's always someone unhappy because this 
> > event wasn't the same, or why was it in this room over here, or OMG Wed 
> > afternoon, etc. Having seen how that sausage gets made, they don't get 
> > enough credit.
>
> Having been the chair of the Asilomar Microcomputer workshop, and the founder 
> and chair of the original Email Deliverability Summits, as well as organizing 
> many legal conferences, I have to say "^^^ this, 1000%."
>
> Furthermore:
>
> > On Mar 28, 2024, at 11:45 AM, Ilissa Miller  wrote:
> >
> > For those that know me, I rarely provide constructive input about NANOG 
> > matters
>
> ..and you haven't here, either.  Pointing fingers and griping about things is 
> not constructive.  If you really care about this issue, then get involved and 
> help change it.
>
> Anne
>
> ---
> Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
> Internet Law & Policy Attorney
> CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP)
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing 
> law)
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
> Prof. Emeritus, 

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Paul WALL]

Hi, Anne-

I'm sure that your time was better spent gathering the "credentials"
in your signature, but I checked the last 20 or so NANOG meetings and
didn't see a single registration from you, so perhaps stay out of
things you know literally nothing about.

If it weren't for Ilissa, NANOG would not exist in the form that it
does today, and she's done more work on and off the clock driving the
success of the organization and their meetings than she takes credit
for. NANOG, and especially the women that attend NANOG, owe her a
tremendous debt of gratitude. Her opinion, and Tina's response, are
literally the only ones that carry any weight in this thread, period.

--
Drive Slow,

Paul Wall
Rapper, Retired, and Actor
Swishahouse Alum
Author: Get Money, Stay True
Nominated: Best Rap Performance as a Duo or Group
Winner: Best Rap Collaboration
Winner: Best Rap/R Collaboration
Winner: Taste Maker (Style and Trendsetter)
Contributor: Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition for Xbox and PlayStation 2 –
"Sittin' Sidewayz"
Author: The Peoples Champ
Emeritus: Houston University (no degree)


On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 3:24 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure people realize how much crap that staff and the PC get *every 
> > meeting* about the agenda. There's always someone unhappy because this 
> > event wasn't the same, or why was it in this room over here, or OMG Wed 
> > afternoon, etc. Having seen how that sausage gets made, they don't get 
> > enough credit.
>
> Having been the chair of the Asilomar Microcomputer workshop, and the founder 
> and chair of the original Email Deliverability Summits, as well as organizing 
> many legal conferences, I have to say "^^^ this, 1000%."
>
> Furthermore:
>
> > On Mar 28, 2024, at 11:45 AM, Ilissa Miller  wrote:
> >
> > For those that know me, I rarely provide constructive input about NANOG 
> > matters
>
> ..and you haven't here, either.  Pointing fingers and griping about things is 
> not constructive.  If you really care about this issue, then get involved and 
> help change it.
>
> Anne
>
> ---
> Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
> Internet Law & Policy Attorney
> CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP)
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing 
> law)
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
> Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
> Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
>
>
>
>
>

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 3:24 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure people realize how much crap that staff and the PC get *every 
> > meeting* about the agenda. There's always someone unhappy because this 
> > event wasn't the same, or why was it in this room over here, or OMG Wed 
> > afternoon, etc. Having seen how that sausage gets made, they don't get 
> > enough credit.
>
> Having been the chair of the Asilomar Microcomputer workshop, and the founder 
> and chair of the original Email Deliverability Summits, as well as organizing 
> many legal conferences, I have to say "^^^ this, 1000%."
>
> Furthermore:
>
> > On Mar 28, 2024, at 11:45 AM, Ilissa Miller  wrote:
> >
> > For those that know me, I rarely provide constructive input about NANOG 
> > matters
>
> ..and you haven't here, either.  Pointing fingers and griping about things is 
> not constructive.  If you really care about this issue, then get involved and 
> help change it.
>
> Anne
>
> ---
> Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
> Internet Law & Policy Attorney
> CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP)
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing 
> law)
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
> Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
> Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
>
>
>
>
>

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Eric Parsonage]

Matt,
For a variety of cultural, religious and philosophical beliefs not everyone 
can, or wants to enter a bar. So perhaps the experience isn't as universal as 
you perceive it to be?
Eric


On 30 March 2024 6:18:30 am ACDT, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:17 PM Eric Parsonage  wrote:
>
>> It's easily fixed by having a mixer at the same time for the other half of
>> the gathering population thus showing all the population gathering matters
>> equally.
>>
>
>
>I believe the mixer for the other half of the gathering population has been
>going on for decades, and is generally referred to as "drinks at the hotel
>lobby bar".
>Just because it isn't called out by name doesn't mean that the male half of
>the population hasn't been meeting and mixing and mingling already for
>years.  ;-P
>
>I'm with Randy Bush on this.  The stakeholders in that event should have
>the say in what happens with it; not the rest of us.
>Those of us old white males need to check our privilege, and recognize that
>we've *been* having "mixers" for decades.
>We don't need to put a stake in the ground and push for our equality; we've
>already been on the beneficiary side of the
>inequality for decades.
>
>Matt

Re: Open source Netflow analysis for monitoring AS-to-AS traffic

[Peter Phaal]

The sFlow frame_length field isn't intended to be vague. If you are seeing
non-conforming sFlow implementations, please raise the issue with the
vendor so they can fix the issue.

Verifying that the frame_length and stripped fields are correctly
implemented is one of the tests performed by the sFlow Test tool and
running the tool can be helpful in persuading a vendor that they are out of
compliance:

https://blog.sflow.com/2015/11/sflow-test.html

The following language is included in the sFlow Version 5 spec,
https://sflow.org/sflow_version_5.txt.

/* Raw Packet Header */
/* opaque = flow_data; enterprise = 0; format = 1 */

struct sampled_header {
   header_protocol protocol;   /* Format of sampled header */
   unsigned int frame_length;  /* Original length of packet before
  sampling.
  Note: For a layer 2 header_protocol,
length is total number of octets
of data received on the network
(excluding framing bits but
including FCS octets).
Hardware limitations may
prevent an exact reporting
of the underlying frame length,
but an agent should attempt to
be as accurate as possible. Any
octets added to the frame_length
to compensate for encapsulations
removed by the underlying
hardware
must also be added to the
stripped
count. */



v1.00   sFlow.org  [Page 35]

FINALsFlow Version 5   July 2004


   unsigned int stripped;  /* The number of octets removed from
  the packet before extracting the
  header<> octets. Trailing
encapsulation
  data corresponding to any leading
  encapsulations that were stripped must
  also be stripped. Trailing
encapsulation
  data for the outermost protocol layer
  included in the sampled header must be
  stripped.

  In the case of a non-encapsulated
802.3
  packet stripped >= 4 since VLAN tag
  information might have been stripped
off
  in addition to the FCS.

  Outer encapsulations that are
ambiguous,
  or not one of the standard
header_protocol
  must be stripped. */
   opaque header<>;/* Header bytes */
}

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:46 PM Steven Bakker 
wrote:

> To top it off, both the sFlow and IPFIX specs are sufficiently vague about
> the meaning of the "frame size", so vendors can implement whatever they
> want (include/exclude padding, include/exclude FCS). This implies that you
> shouldn't trust these fields.
>

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Matthew Petach]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:17 PM Eric Parsonage  wrote:

> It's easily fixed by having a mixer at the same time for the other half of
> the gathering population thus showing all the population gathering matters
> equally.
>


I believe the mixer for the other half of the gathering population has been
going on for decades, and is generally referred to as "drinks at the hotel
lobby bar".
Just because it isn't called out by name doesn't mean that the male half of
the population hasn't been meeting and mixing and mingling already for
years.  ;-P

I'm with Randy Bush on this.  The stakeholders in that event should have
the say in what happens with it; not the rest of us.
Those of us old white males need to check our privilege, and recognize that
we've *been* having "mixers" for decades.
We don't need to put a stake in the ground and push for our equality; we've
already been on the beneficiary side of the
inequality for decades.

Matt

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Randy Bush]

we definitely need more men's opinions on what women should want and do

randy

Re: Open source Netflow analysis for monitoring AS-to-AS traffic

[Steven Bakker]

On Fri, 2024-03-29 at 00:15 +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Overall, sflow has one major advantage over netflow/ipfix, namely
> that
> it's a stateless sampling mechanism.

Precisely. From my corner of the industry, my use case for flow data is
extremely limited: I need (sampled) frame information: src-mac, dst-
mac, qtag, ethernet protocol, framesize, sample rate. sFlow provides
that in every sample, in a straighforward manner. (Never mind that the
vendor we use does interesting things with the way they sample.)

IPFIX, by comparison, is a nightmare: to understand the data records,
you need to have seen (and stored) the corresponding data template
first. Those records will contain most of the information I need,
*except* the sampling rate, which comes from an options data record...
which you first have to match to an options template. Then, the
sampling rate may not be present, but the sampling probability can be.
Slightly different semantics. So that's four types of records your
collector may receive. There is also at least one vendor that believes
it's perfectly fine to export those over different transport sessions
(read: different UDP source ports), which makes it really hard to do
load balancing on the receiving side.

To top it off, both the sFlow and IPFIX specs are sufficiently vague
about the meaning of the "frame size", so vendors can implement
whatever they want (include/exclude padding, include/exclude FCS). This
implies that you shouldn't trust these fields.

Ah, well.

-- Steven


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Weekly Global IPv4 Routing Table Report

[Routing Table Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
UKNOF, TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net.

For historical data, please see https://thyme.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

IPv4 Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 30 Mar, 2024

  BGP Table (Global) as seen in Japan.

Report Website: https://thyme.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  https://thyme.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  941345
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  359528
Deaggregation factor:  2.62
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  458844
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 75602
Prefixes per ASN: 12.45
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   64819
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   26589
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   10783
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:508
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.3
Max AS path length visible:  55
Max AS path prepend of ASN (265020)  50
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:  1062
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:  1064
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  43966
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   36132
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:  183764
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:19
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:587
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   3028684160
Equivalent to 180 /8s, 134 /16s and 13 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   81.8
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   81.8
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.6
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  310572

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   249547
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   73255
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.41
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  242115
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:   100102
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   14081
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   17.19
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   4264
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1876
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.4
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 35
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   9458
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  760858496
Equivalent to 45 /8s, 89 /16s and 199 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-153913
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:274731
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   124158
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.21
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   279459
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:132739
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:19129
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/29/24 18:31, Tom Beecher wrote:


I don't think anything is 'easily fixed' on this topic.

I do however hope that everyone accepts at face value that the board, 
staff, and PC are *trying* to do the right things here. Doesn't mean 
that it *will* always be the right thing, or even that a majority of 
people can agree on what the right thing actually is.


As I always say on matters such as these, "More talking is better than 
less talking".


And as uncomfortable as such discussions are to have, we get closer to a 
reasonable solution when we talk, and less so when we don't.


Mark.

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/29/24 18:23, Tom Beecher wrote:



My recollection is that every WiT lunch was always open to all. Happy 
to be corrected if any were that I don't recall.


There were definitely a few meetings during my PC years that someone 
complained that men were not allowed to attend. If my memory serves me 
correctly, we at one point were asking session moderators to remind 
people of this in general session for a while too. For some meetings, 
a few of us were standing at the doors telling people who asked that 
men were allowed to attend that if they would like.


I can't remember which year it was, but my recollection was hearing the 
complaints from the men that were upset during the evening social. 
Admittedly, I did not hear this from what I would term "the majority of 
men" at that specific meeting, so it would be disingenuous to state, 
with any authority, that this is how the majority of men felt/feel about 
the WiT lunch.


Having said all that, for the avoidance of doubt (and as Tina has 
already indicated for NANOG 91), it might be worth mentioning, before 
and throughout the conference, that while it is a WiT lunch, all 
attendees are welcome to join if that is, indeed, the intended format.


Mark.

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Tom Beecher]

I don't think anything is 'easily fixed' on this topic.

I do however hope that everyone accepts at face value that the board,
staff, and PC are *trying* to do the right things here. Doesn't mean that
it *will* always be the right thing, or even that a majority of people can
agree on what the right thing actually is.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 1:05 AM Eric Parsonage  wrote:

> It's easily fixed by having a mixer at the same time for the other half of
> the gathering population thus showing all the population gathering matters
> equally.
>
>
>
> On 29 March 2024 2:50:19 pm ACDT, Ren Provo  wrote:
>
>> I beg to differ here and second Ilissa’s comments.  I miss WiT.  Lunch
>> during the meeting worked.  Giving up more of the weekend to travel does
>> not show half the population gathering matters.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 15:16 Morris, Tina via NANOG 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Illissa,
>>> The mixer is at 5pm Sunday, this allows people to network and prepare
>>> for the week. Sunday also has a hackathon, registration, and often a
>>> welcome social. NANOG has a very compressed schedule and another time would
>>> actually mean that the women participating would have to pick between this
>>> event and another event or talk  that may be critical to their job
>>> function, which is also unfair.
>>>
>>> We are advertising this mixer to make sure all are aware and can attend,
>>> and the mixers will  be on the schedule at the same approximate time at
>>> each meeting going forward.
>>>
>>> I hope we will see you there.
>>>
>>> Tina Morris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 28, 2024, at 14:12, Thomas Scott 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
>>> know the content is safe.
>>>
>>> > While the times are changing, women continue to remain primary
>>> caregivers for families and this will require them to desert their families
>>> a day early.  I find it offensive personally and feel like you may have
>>> missed the mark.
>>>
>>> The hackathon has for (as far as I’ve known about it) been on Sunday. I
>>> don’t work on Sundays - it’s a day for my family (unless the almighty pager
>>> goes off), so I’ve never gone - even though it’s one of the parts of NANOG
>>> I’d enjoy, and would benefit from the most.
>>>
>>> There are tradeoffs for everything - perhaps the idea was to keep the
>>> women’s mixer separate from the other evening events, so that those who
>>> wish to participate, can do all of the evening events, and not have to give
>>> up anything, at the cost of the extra day. That being said, I agree, moving
>>> more to Sunday is not an acceptable answer to me.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> -Thomas Scott
>>>
>>> On Mar 28, 2024 at 1:45:07 PM, Ilissa Miller 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 For those that know me, I rarely provide constructive input about NANOG
 matters due to my past affiliation, however, I just saw that NANOG
 announced the Women mixer on Sunday before NANOG 91 and am outraged for all
 of the young professional women
 ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
 This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
 You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

 ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

>>> For those that know me, I rarely provide constructive input about NANOG
 matters due to my past affiliation, however, I just saw that NANOG
 announced the Women mixer on Sunday before NANOG 91 and am outraged for all
 of the young professional women who would like to participate in NANOG.
 While the times are changing, women continue to remain primary caregivers
 for families and this will require them to desert their families a day
 early.  I find it offensive personally and feel like you may have missed
 the mark.

 The amount of times I hear people complain about having to leave their
 families is one of the reasons this industry has a problem keeping young
 people - especially women.

 Does anyone else feel the same?



 --
 *Ilissa Miller*
 *CEO, iMiller Public Relations
 *

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Tom Beecher]

>
> My memory is a little fuzzy, but I think I recall one of the early WiT
> lunches hosted at NANOG that was women-only, where some men were upset
> for being "left out". Whether that was good or bad is less important
> than understanding what the outcome of a women-only activity is for
> women, especially for those for whom it may not be immediately obvious.
>

My recollection is that every WiT lunch was always open to all. Happy to be
corrected if any were that I don't recall.

There were definitely a few meetings during my PC years that someone
complained that men were not allowed to attend. If my memory serves me
correctly, we at one point were asking session moderators to remind people
of this in general session for a while too. For some meetings, a few of us
were standing at the doors telling people who asked that men were allowed
to attend that if they would like.




On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 1:34 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 3/29/24 07:03, Eric Parsonage wrote:
>
> > It's easily fixed by having a mixer at the same time for the other
> > half of the gathering population thus showing all the population
> > gathering matters equally.
>
> My memory is a little fuzzy, but I think I recall one of the early WiT
> lunches hosted at NANOG that was women-only, where some men were upset
> for being "left out". Whether that was good or bad is less important
> than understanding what the outcome of a women-only activity is for
> women, especially for those for whom it may not be immediately obvious.
>
> While equal access to opportunity between the genders is the most
> effective policy, I think there is utility in women having their own
> session, given that they face unique challenges in an industry where
> they are the minority operators.
>
> Mark.
>

March is International Women's History Month - Remembering Betty J. Burke!

[Ilissa Miller]

In honor of Women’s History Month, Ilissa Miller
, Founder and CEO of iMiller
Public Relations (iMPR) , and Jezzibell Gilmore
, would like to recognize Betty Joe
Burke, former Executive Director for NANOG  – the
North American Network Operators’ Group.

Miller reflects on the profound impact Betty had on her life and career:

If you don’t know of Betty – who passed away on November 7, 2022 – she was
a firecracker and an industry starter enabling the accelerated development
of the internet across the U.S.

Betty spent her professional career as an IT trailblazer. She worked to
“bring people together” to develop the Internet first through her work at
the University of Michigan beginning in 1974, later through Merit Network,
Inc. and as the Executive Director of the North American Network Operators’
Group (NANOG, Inc.). Her professional endeavors included management of a
consortium of engineering professionals working to re-engineer and manage
the first national, high speed internet backbone (NSFNET). She oversaw the
build out of the State of Michigan’s largest technology center and
coordinated IT conferences composed of an international membership
community working to invent the Internet of tomorrow. She retired from the
University of Michigan after 36 years of service in 2010. She retired as
the Executive Director of NANOG, Inc. in 2018.

I had the honor and pleasure of working side-by-side with Betty from
2012-2018 while overseeing sponsorship sales for NANOG. She was a mentor, a
friend, a colleague and a boss – she embodied everything I always thought a
leader should be. I miss her dearly.

Please join me in honoring Betty Joe Burke during this March 2024 in honor
of Women’s History Month!

Gilmore emphasizes the incredible spirit that Betty embodied, being a
driving force in the industry, while still empowering and motivating
others. Gilmore recalls Betty’s soft tone of voice, calming smile, and
unwavering determination that has since left a lasting impact on the
internet industry:

Betty was an incredible spirit who was deeply loved and respected by many
in the Internet networking industry. Betty Joe Burke is an unsung hero, and
one deserves much more admiration and praise for what she has done
throughout her career.

While our lives are our own, often the path we take is shaped by people and
events in our lives. Betty is one of those quiet yet powerful leaders,
whose influence shaped the Internet networking industry, and the paths of
many that built the industry. Her soft tone of voice, calming smile no
matter the situation, and unwavering determination not only paved the way
for our generation of women leaders, but generations of talent and mindset
of the internet industry.

Betty was kind, passionate, persistent, creative, intelligent, and hard
working. Although she took charge, she did not like to be the center of
attention. She demonstrated daily success comes from relentless pursuit of
your goals, not knowing how to do everything. One of the phrases that she
used often, that I now use myself all the time is “We’ll figure it out”.
Because she always figured out a way to make it happen.

Betty was talented in many aspects, but above all else, she took the time
to build up people around her. She not only encouraged me to take risks
that I was too afraid to take, but she was by my side to support and guide
me along my entire NANOG leadership journey. I didn’t just learn how to be
a better communicator, but how to introspect and elevate my point of view
as a leader.

Betty was courageous. Courage is actions taken while acknowledging our
fear, and in spite of that fear. Betty taught me not to fall victim to
fear, especially fear of failure – don’t allow fear of failure keep you
from taking actions. Our actions define who we are, not our thoughts or
intentions. I am a better version of me because of the actions I had taken
at Betty’s urging.

Betty is deeply missed by her colleagues, family, and friends who cherish
her memory and the enduring impact she made on the industry, ensuring that
her influence will continue to resonate for generations to come.

This Women’s History Month, please join us in honoring Betty Joe Burke by
reciting the poem she chose for her celebration of life:


You can read the post online here:
https://datacenterpost.com/honoring-betty-joe-burke-women-of-the-global-digital-infrastructure-industry/

Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Morris, Tina via NANOG]

We still have a lunch, it is welcome to all as it always has been.  It has been 
widened to talk about many aspects of DEI. The NANOG PC is charged with putting 
a talk up on the stage just before then we continue the conversation during 
lunch.

The mixer is an additional thing we are doing that is very intentional to drive 
connection, inclusion, and networking for those that identify as female.  Given 
we are only 10-12% of the population at NANOG, I have received direct feedback 
from newcomers that this was very helpful for them to have a successful first 
meeting.

The hope is by doing it Sunday afternoon at 5pm people will be arriving for the 
meeting Monday morning.  As most travel on Sunday anyway.


Tina Morris

On Mar 29, 2024, at 01:05, Eric Parsonage  wrote:



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.


It's easily fixed by having a mixer at the same time for the other half of the 
gathering population thus showing all the population gathering matters equally.



On 29 March 2024 2:50:19 pm ACDT, Ren Provo  wrote:
I beg to differ here and second Ilissa’s comments.  I miss WiT.  Lunch during 
the meeting worked.  Giving up more of the weekend to travel does not show half 
the population gathering matters.


On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 15:16 Morris, Tina via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
Illissa,
The mixer is at 5pm Sunday, this allows people to network and prepare for the 
week. Sunday also has a hackathon, registration, and often a welcome social. 
NANOG has a very compressed schedule and another time would actually mean that 
the women participating would have to pick between this event and another event 
or talk  that may be critical to their job function, which is also unfair.

We are advertising this mixer to make sure all are aware and can attend, and 
the mixers will  be on the schedule at the same approximate time at each 
meeting going forward.

I hope we will see you there.

Tina Morris


On Mar 28, 2024, at 14:12, Thomas Scott 
mailto:mr.thomas.sc...@gmail.com>> wrote:



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.


> While the times are changing, women continue to remain primary caregivers for 
> families and this will require them to desert their families a day early.  I 
> find it offensive personally and feel like you may have missed the mark.

The hackathon has for (as far as I’ve known about it) been on Sunday. I don’t 
work on Sundays - it’s a day for my family (unless the almighty pager goes 
off), so I’ve never gone - even though it’s one of the parts of NANOG I’d 
enjoy, and would benefit from the most.

There are tradeoffs for everything - perhaps the idea was to keep the women’s 
mixer separate from the other evening events, so that those who wish to 
participate, can do all of the evening events, and not have to give up 
anything, at the cost of the extra day. That being said, I agree, moving more 
to Sunday is not an acceptable answer to me.

Best Regards,
-Thomas Scott

On Mar 28, 2024 at 1:45:07 PM, Ilissa Miller 
mailto:ili...@imillerpr.com>> wrote:
For those that know me, I rarely provide constructive input about NANOG matters 
due to my past affiliation, however, I just saw that NANOG announced the Women 
mixer on Sunday before NANOG 91 and am outraged for all of the young 
professional women
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
For those that know me, I rarely provide constructive input about NANOG matters 
due to my past affiliation, however, I just saw that NANOG announced the Women 
mixer on Sunday before NANOG 91 and am outraged for all of the young 
professional women who would like to participate in NANOG.  While the times are 
changing, women continue to remain primary caregivers for families and this 
will require them to desert their families a day early.  I find it offensive 
personally and feel like you may have missed the mark.

The amount of times I hear people complain about having to leave their families 
is one of the reasons this industry has a problem keeping young people - 
especially women.

Does anyone else feel the same?



--
Ilissa Miller
CEO, iMiller Public 
Relations

Re: Open source Netflow analysis for monitoring AS-to-AS traffic

[Saku Ytti]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 at 02:15, Nick Hilliard  wrote:

> Overall, sflow has one major advantage over netflow/ipfix, namely that
> it's a stateless sampling mechanism.  Once you have hardware that can

> Obviously, not all netflow/ipfix implementations implement flow state,
> but most do; some implement stateless sampling ala sflow. Also many

> Tools should be chosen to fit the job. There are plenty of situations
> where sflow is ideal. There are others where netflow is preferable.

This seems like a long-winded way of saying, sFlow is a perfect subset of IPFIX.

We will increasingly see IPFIX implementations omit state, because
states don't do anything anymore in high-volume networks, you will
only ever create flow in cache, then delay exporting the information
for some seconds, but the flow is never hit twice, therefore paying
massive cost for caching, without getting anything out of it. Anyone
who actually needs caching, will have to buy specialised devices, as
it will no longer be economical for peering-routers to offer such
memory bandwidth and cache sizes that caches will actually do
something.
In a particular network we tried 1:5000 and 1:500 and in both cases
flow records were 1 packet long, at which point we hit record export
policer limit, and couldn't determine at which sampling rate we will
start to see cache being useful.

I've wondered for a long time, what would a graph look like, where you
graph sampling ratio and percentage of flows observed, it will be
linear to very high sampling ratios, but eventually it will start to
taper off, I just don't have any intuitive idea when. And I don't
think anyone really knows what ratio of flows they are observing in
the sFlow/IPFIX, if you keep sampling ratio static over a period of
time, say decade, you will continuously reduce your resolution, seeing
a smaller percentage of flows. This worries me a lot, because
statistician would say that you need this share of volume or this
share of flows if you want to use the data like this with this
confidence, therefore if we formally think the problem, we should
constantly adjust our sampling ratios to fit our statistical model to
keep same promises about data quality.

-- 
  ++ytti

Re: Open source Netflow analysis for monitoring AS-to-AS traffic

[Saku Ytti]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 20:36, Peter Phaal  wrote:

> The documentation for IOS-XR suggests that enabling extended-router in the 
> sFlow configuration should export "Autonomous system path to the 
> destination", at least on the 8000 series routers:
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/iosxr/cisco8000/netflow/command/reference/b-netflow-cr-cisco8k/m-sflow-commands.html
> I couldn't find a similar option in the NetFlow/IPFIX configuration guide, 
> but I might have missed it.

Hope this clarifies.

--- 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k-r7-9/configuration/guide/b-netflow-cg-asr9k-79x/configuring-netflow.html
Use the record ipv4 [peer-as] command to record peer AS. Here, you
collect and export the peer AS numbers.
Note
Ensure that the bgp attribute-download command is configured. Else, no
AS is collected when the record ipv4 or record ipv4 peer-as command is
configured.


-- 
  ++ytti