Re: N91 Women mixer on Sunday?

[Ren Provo]

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: Why are paper LOAs still used?

[Ren Provo]

Most important parts on the LOA are the explicit ASN, the name to be found
in the cross-connect order portal and local contact data.  Contractors need
that.

Global networks rarely have a contact appropriate for provisioning in a
public facing database.

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 14:50 Sean Donelan  wrote:

> Authentication by letterhead?
>
> Paper LOAs are unauthenticated documents, not worth the paper they are
> written on. Usually FAXed, which is even less authenticatable (is that a
> word?).
>
> Prosecutors are capable of using digital documents. Do it all the time
> with echecks, credit cards, ecommerce orders and ACH payments.  But LOAs
> are typically civil disputes, not criminal, when someone mistypes an IP
> address.
>
> They should verifiy the information in the paper LOA with a registry
> anyway.  Since LOAs have no intrinsic value, wouldn't be worth the
> prosecutors time.
>
> Usually a salesperson or order entry clerk thinks its required because
> they've always required it.  But no one in the legal department actually
> knows what to do with a LOA or how to authenticate them.
>
> Because carriers never authenticate LOAs.
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Matt Erculiani wrote:
> > A paper LOA is a legally binding document, an IRR record is an IRR
> record.
> > Falsifying an LOA that is transmitted digitally is wire fraud and can
> > basically be handed right over to a DA for injunction and prosecution.
> >
> > Falsifying IRR records on the other hand leaves more work for the ISP's
> > lawyers to walk a judge (and jury) through the entire purpose and use of
> > that system, as opposed to "here's a super important sheet of paper that
> > they lied on case closed".
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:57 AM Seth Mattinen via NANOG <
> nanog@nanog.org>
> > wrote:
> >   Why do companies still insist on, or deploy new systems that
> >   rely on
> >   paper LOA for IP and ASN resources? How can this be considered
> >   more
> >   trustworthy than RIR based IRR records?
> >
> >   And I'm not even talking about old companies, I have a situation
> >   right
> >   now where a VPS provider I'm using will no longer use IRR and
> >   only
> >   accepts new paper LOAs. In the year 2024. I don't understand how
> >   anyone
> >   can go backwards like that.
> >
> >   ~Seth
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Erculiani
> >
> >
>

Re: Calling LinkedIn, Amazon and Akamai @ DE-CIX NY

[Ren Provo]

Hi Thomas,

You probably should remove sessions with networks explicitly *not*
participating in route servers versus displaying them on a global shame
list.

Cheers, -ren

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:06 PM Thomas King  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your support! This helps us getting all peers on the new IPv4
> space.
>
>
>
> Our looking glass shows which peers already have changed the IP settings
> (see section “BGP session established”) and which peers are still working
> on it (see section “BGP sessions down”):
>
> https://lg.de-cix.net/routeservers/rs1_nyc_ipv4#sessions-up
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *NANOG  on behalf of James Stankiewicz <
> stankiew...@njedge.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 30. January 2019 at 19:32
> *To: *Jared Mauch 
> *Cc: *North American Network Operators' Group 
> *Subject: *Re: Calling LinkedIn, Amazon and Akamai @ DE-CIX NY
>
>
>
> Microsoft an Edgecast has not yet made there changes.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:20 PM Jared Mauch 
> wrote:
>
> Akamai is working on doing our part. Apologies.
>
> Sent from my iCar
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin  wrote:
>
> Pinged my contacts in each
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:52 Jason Lixfeld 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In late October 2018, DE-CIX announced that they would be renumbering
> their IPv4 address block in New York between 01-28-19 and 01-30-19.
>
> This was followed by numerous reminders in months, weeks and even days
> leading up to the renumbering activity.
>
> The renumbering activity has come and gone, but LinkedIn, Amazon and
> Akamai are still using the old IPs.
>
> If three months has gone by and the numerous reminders that have been sent
> have resulted in these organizations still living on the old IP space, it
> seems to me that there may be some sort of a disconnect between who
> receives the notifications from IXPs and how they are filtered upstream.
>
> I’m hopeful that the eyeballs who read this list are some of those folks
> who should have received the notifications from DE-CIX, or can at least
> filter the info back downstream to whoever can perform the renumbering
> activity.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
>
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Jim Stankiewicz*
>
> *Principal Network Architect*
>
> *NJEdge*
>
> *W:855.832.EDGE(3343)*
>
> *c:201.306.4409*
>
> *[image:
> https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=0B15Cb24EwZVsOUhIa0lWbG9ZT2c=0B15Cb24EwZVsdVB2SlJ3ekFEUllPRDZyMGZ5cUtkbko2bWQ0PQ]*
>
>
>
>
>

Re: IOS new versions and network load

[Ren Provo]

Thank you Jason!  

Big week ahead for http://as714.peeringdb.com

Cheers! -ren.pr...@gmail.com

> On Sep 18, 2017, at 5:48 AM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 11:05 PM, JASON BOTHE  wrote:
>> 
>> My best experience with Apple has been directly peering with them.
>> Definitely handles the update issue without putting strain on transit
>> links. Apple is very well connected.
>> 
>> https://www.peeringdb.com/net/3554
>> 
>> 
> apple is AS714 though, right? or are they having the trucking company do
> their delivery of bits?
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Sep 17, 2017, at 21:50, Mel Beckman  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It is still there. MacMiniColo.
>>> 
>>> -mel beckman
>>> 
 On Sep 17, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
 
 There used to be a Mac mini "hotel" at Switch networks in Vegas. I
>> think it's still there.
 
 -mel
 
>> On Sep 17, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <
>> jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2017-09-17 19:37, Eduardo Schoedler wrote:
>> 
>> Server is an app now, any MacOS can have it running.
> 
> But do carriers/ISPs really want to deal with a rack unfriendly Mac
>> Mini
> or iMac at a carrier hotel?  If the Server App could run on Linux, or
>> if
> OS-X could boot on standard servers, perhaps, it it seems to be a very
> bad fit in carrier/enterprise environments.
> 
>> Implementation will be a little tricky, because you need your
>> customers to look a record in your domain.
> 
> 
> I've tried reading some about it.
> The cache server app registers with Apple its existence and the IP
> address ranges it serves
> 
> When a client wants to download new IOS version, Apple checked and
>> finds
> that the client's IP is served by the caching server whose "local" IP
>> is
> a.b.c.d (akaL the inside NAT IP address). Tells client to get version
>> of
> software from that IP address.
> 
> The DNS TXT records are used by the Caching Server to get the list of
>> IP
> blocks it can serve.  (not needed in the target small office
> environments where everyone is on same subnet and the caching server
>> can
> tell the apple serves the one subnet it seves).
> 
>> 

Re: AS 714/6185 IX Peering

[Ren Provo]

Third time should be the charm?
(Thanks Job!)

Cheers! -Ren
Sent from my iPhone 6S Plus

> On May 27, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Ren Provo <ren.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Several folks have written to ensure I spotted this during RIPE.  Indeed, the 
> reminder to engage contacts posted at http://as714.peeringdb.com - namely 
> peering-...@apple.com - was sent.  Y'all didn't see it because it was sent 
> from an email that is not registered on this list.  Spotted the rejection 
> later.  Hence take two today and a confirmation Graham's concern has been 
> noted within Apple.
> 
> Cheers! -Ren
> Sent from my iPhone 6S Plus
> 
>> On May 26, 2016, at 3:11 PM, Graham Johnston <johnst...@westmancom.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Is there anyone from AS 714/6185 that can reach out to me, AS 19016, to try 
>> and get traffic from your network to come to me via your Equinix IX 
>> connection instead of a transit connections.
>> 
>> Graham Johnston
>> Network Planner
>> Westman Communications Group
>> 204.717.2829
>> johnst...@westmancom.com<mailto:johnst...@westmancom.com>
>> P think green; don't print this email.
>> 

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

[Ren Provo]

Even better by Verizon -
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalanced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon-cogent-dispute

Some may recognize the name of the author for the WSJ article given
she attended NANOG in Orlando -
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323836504578553170167992666-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
 good article by Stacey Higginbotham

 http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/

Re: Comcast NOC Contact

[Ren Provo]

Uhm, no I did not.  I'd be happy to review your request.  Send over
your ASN to the proper channels please. -ren_pr...@cable.comcast.com


On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Vinod K vinod...@hotmail.com wrote:

 What congested links r u seeing?

 When we contacted Comcast for peering, Ren Provo explain that ratios r 
 balanced b/c of their media and cloud products... imbalance is common 
 misunderstanding.

 Vinod

 From: wingc...@hotmail.com
 To: j...@baylink.com; nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: RE: Comcast NOC Contact
 Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 14:35:59 -0500

 Yeah, I've been hitting congested links with several of my customers. This 
 was just a case of one of our customer's prefixes taking an extra long 
 journey from one region to another.
 Thank you to all who responded! I think we might on our way to remediating 
 this small issue!
 -Rob

  Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 11:03:10 -0500
  From: j...@baylink.com
  To: nanog@nanog.org
  Subject: Re: Comcast NOC Contact
 
  - Original Message -
   On Mar 3, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
 
For providers who have an overall asymmetric traffic profile towards
Comcast, it's a matter of perspective as to whether you view this as
the providers sending Comcast traffic or Comcast customers pulling it.
So it's hardly surprising that there are disagreements about who gets 
to pay
the other for the interconnection arrangements.
 
  Saying that it's a matter of perspective is a false dichotomy.
 
  If the providers go away, the Comcast customers will pull traffic from
  other providers.
 
  If the *customers* go away...
 
  Nope; Comcast is acting as the agent of its customers to pull in traffic
  they want to see, and if it isn't charging them enough for that, that is
  *Comcast's* problem.
 
  It's really a bright-line answer.
 
  Cheers,
  -- jra
  --
  Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
  j...@baylink.com
  Designer The Things I Think   RFC 
  2100
  Ashworth  Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover 
  DII
  St Petersburg FL USA   #natog  +1 727 647 
  1274
 

Re: Comcast vs. Verizon for repair methodologies

[Ren Provo]

Hi Patrick,

Yikes.  We can work together on getting this sorted.  Will give you
details directly.  Cheers, -ren


On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
 Given the recent VZ thread, I thought I'd show why my new house has crap 
 Internet.

 The story: A piece of underground cable went bad.  The techs didn't pull new 
 underground cable.  They decided it was better to do it arial (if you can 
 call 2 feet arial).  They took apart the two pedestals on either side of 
 the break and ran a new strand of RG6 (yes, the same stuff you use inside 
 your home, not the outside-plant rated stuff) tied to trees with rope.

 http://ianai.smugmug.com/BostonPix/2012/Comcast-Atherton-Street

 These pedestals have looked like this for months apparently.  I called the 
 800 # and complained, they rolled a truck.  The guy didn't even come in my 
 house, just gave me his supervisor's number and said that he's a home tech, 
 the outside plant guys are the problem and he can't fix it.  A second guy 
 rolled up while we were chatting and told me he had a call around the block 
 for the same thing.  They've been taking complaints about this for months and 
 are as tired of it as we are.  I assured them I was more tired of it, given 
 he was getting paid while I was paying, but I understood their situation.

 Of course, since the other broadband option at my house is 1 Mbps Verizon 
 DSL, I don't have much leverage. :(

 --
 TTFN,
 patrick

 P.S. Worst part is ATT sux there too, so I have a picocell - which runs over 
 the Comcast cable mode

Re: Comcast Paid Peer Pricing

[Ren Provo]

What is your ASN Nabil so I can find out what you submitted for a
request, including scope and term. -ren

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Nabil Sharma nabilsha...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Dear NANOG:
 I seek pricing on Comcast AS7922 paid peer at following commit level:
 1G
 10G
 100G
 Please reply in private and I will sum up on list.
 Sincerely,
 Nabil

Re: Cogent for ISP bandwidth

[Ren Provo]

Keep in mind http://bgp.he.net is not always accurate.  It is a great
start but even after years of pointing it out there are adjacencies
missing and oddly some listed as direct where no relationship even
exists.

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
 I appreciate the reference to bgp.he.net, I had not used that tool before.

Re: CDN locations for US eyeball networks

[Ren Provo]

Hi John,

Take a look at -

http://as7018.peeringdb.com
http://as701.peeringdb.com
http://as7922.peeringdb.com
http://as7843.peeringdb.com
http://as22773.peeringdb.com
http://as20115.peeringdb.com

Most list interconnect locations, others have policy pointers which
list cities of interest.  Cheers, -ren

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:30 PM, John Bell john_c.b...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Hello NANOGers.

 I am in the process of scouting for CDN node
 locations for content delivery to end users in the US. Currently looking
  at Seattle, Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, Miami and New York.
 Would
 much appreciate any recommendations, best practices or advice on
 how/where to get good connectivity to the large eyeball networks. Being
 small fish, connectivity will be based on the transit I can score or in
 general connectivity that DCs/server providers offer in the locations
 chosen.


 John

Fwd: [NANOG-announce] NANOG 53 Update

[Ren Provo]

Thanks for the reminder Betty!

Comcast is hosting a social on Sunday night, October 9th, from
6:30-9:30pm on the 43rd floor at Comcast Center.

NANOG and ARIN participants, registered by Wednesday the 5th of
October, will be on the guest list with security in the lobby.  Late
registrants will need to work with security onsite so please register
early instead.  Photo ID will be required for all participants to
proceed from the lobby to the 43rd floor.

A pair of trolley cars will make an optional continuous loop between
the Loews Hotel and Comcast Center.  The stroll is about a half a mile
/ 15 minutes with Philadelphia City Hall at the mid-spot.

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXVIII/social.html has
details as well.

We look forward to a great night in Philly to kick-off the week.

Cheers, -ren

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Betty Burke be...@newnog.org wrote:
 Colleagues:

 A short NANOG 53 reminder and update. NANOG 53 will be held in Philadelphia,
 PA on* October 9-12, 2011*.  NANOG 53 will begin with tutorials starting
 early Sunday afternoon, October 9th. The meeting will adjourn approximately
 12 noon on Wednesday, October 12th.

 Thank you to our NANOG 53 Speakers and to the NANOG Program Committee.
  Attendees are sure to enjoy another fantastic program.  The posted agenda
 continues to be updated, however, the NANOG 53 program is expected to remain
 as posted!  Do not delay, register for NANOG 53 now as the* registration
 rate will increase on October 4, 2011.*
 http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog53/agenda.html
 http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog53/nanog53_registration.html


 Please note the Loews Philadelphia *Hotel Group Rate Expires on September
 23, 2011*.  Make your reservation as soon as possible.
 http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog53/hotel.php

 In addition to a wonderful program, attendees will be treated to our famous
 Sponsor Socials.  NANOG 53 Attendees will have ample social networking
 opportunities during each day and through out the evening.  Philadelphia is
 a wonderful place to visit and NANOG is grateful to our host, Comcast, for
 the opportunity to return to the City of Brotherly Love.  Make sure to join
 us and be a part of the NANOG experience.

 Should you have any questions or concerns regarding your reservation, the
 hotel, or NANOG 53 in general, please be sure to send a note to *
 nanog-supp...@nanog.org or phone us at +1 510 492 4030.*


 Betty

 Betty Burke
 NewNOG/NANOG Executive Director
 Office (810) 214-1218

 ___
 NANOG-announce mailing list
 nanog-annou...@nanog.org
 https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: Pricing for Comcast Connectivity

[Ren Provo]

Hi Oscar,

John is right about the NDA.  Feel free to reach out to Steve Lacoff,
as noted at http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/

Volume, location, term, etc. are all factors to consider.  Steve will
be at NANOG if you, or others have questions.

Cheers, -ren

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:01 PM, John van Oppen jvanop...@spectrumnet.us wrote:
 I think all pricing is under NDA for the direct connectivity...   we have it, 
 and I know it is under NDA for us...

 Comcast is in the becoming a tier1 game in a big way so avoiding people who 
 don't already peer with the is probably a plus if you want great connectivity 
 to them.    The AS paths I would avoid are _3356_7922_ (usually fine, but 
 subject to the fight de jour between level3 and Comcast) and anything on 
 _6453_7911_ (subject to being saturated all the time).   Last I checked 
 AS2914 and a few others still only see Comcast via 6453 which made that 
 sub-optimal.


 I can send you a AS7922 sales contact if you need it, just hit me up off 
 list...  they also have a good list of info on peeringdb for people to 
 contact.


 Thanks,

 John van Oppen
 Spectrum Networks  AS 11404

 -Original Message-
 From: Oscar Caraig [mailto:oscarcar...@safe-mail.net]
 Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 10:28 AM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Pricing for Comcast Connectivity

 List,

 Does anyone have sample pricing for Comcast's Paid Peering 
 (http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/) service they'd be able to share?

 Also, are there any transit ISPs to avoid when reaching Comcast?  I remember 
 discussion last winter about Tata being congested, and would like to 
 understand how common these issues are.  I'm preparing to launch a large 
 video broadcast for the state, so any advice would be appreciated.

 Thank you,
 Oscar Caraig

Re: 3500 Egyptian prefixes?

[Ren Provo]

~25 million people live in Cairo alone, many under the age of 30 given
another 'arrival' is said to occur every 10 minutes.  When we were there
earlier this month most had cell phones and wi-fi spots were available all
around the area that is being streamed on CNN right now.  As a society they
are very social and a fair amount of their marketing materials have shifted
to email addresses vs. phone/fax contacts.  Internet access is a big part of
their society.

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.comwrote:

 On the Renesys blog
 http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml
 it says that 3500 prefixes disappeared. 1% of the global table seems a lot,
 especially considering that according to AfriNIC Egypt only has 122 IPv4 and
 7 IPv6 prefixes.

 What gives?

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

[Ren Provo]

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:



 On 11/29/2010 2:40 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote:

 Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to
 support
 the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming
 ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of
 the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans
 spewed
 out regarding Net Neutrality, which has become so misused and abused as
 a
 term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining.



 I find it helpful to distinguish participant neutrality from service
 neutrality.  The first says that you and I pay the same rate.  The second
 says the my email costs the same as my voip.

 As described, it appears that Level3 is being singled out, which makes for
 participant non-neutrality.  On the other hand, if Comcast were charging
 itself for xfinity traffic, this might qualify as service non-neutrality
 (assuming there is a plausible meaning to charging itself...

 d/

 --

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

Re: [Nanog-futures] Fwd: Proposed bylaws for NewNOG

[Ren Provo]

Agree with both Joe Abley's recommendation for limited number of fellows (no
more than one per meeting) nominated perhaps via the same method as PC
nominations?
Agree with Rose Klimovich's concerns as well regarding a finance committee
for eventual audits. -ren

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:


 On 2010-09-20, at 11:02, Daniel Golding wrote:

  The age requirement to be a fellow is more applicable to IEEE than
  NANOG. Also, we don't know how old anyone is - the only observable
  data available is % of grey hair and degree of grouchiness, both of
  which are sadly inexact.

 I can understand the age criteria if the goal is to avoid half the usual
 NANOG-attending crew clearly being qualified to become a fellow. I'm not
 sure I agree with it, though -- I think there are better gating mechanisms
 (and as an industry, we are unusual in that the average age of those who
 deserve recognition is low).

 Perhaps a better approach would be for the bylaws to open the doors to a
 deliberately-restricted number of new fellows every year, with some
 possibility for variance as approved by the board.

 The other detail that might be nice to include is a description of who gets
 to judge worthiness for fellowship, since the board may well find it less
 stressful to off-load that decision (or at least the job of producing
 recommendations) to people who are not on the board. Being able to avoid
 accusations of cronyism seems useful.

 I like the idea of fellowships, though. It's nice for a community to be
 able to recognise outstanding contributions by its members.


 Joe


 ___
 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] Did I miss the announcement?

[Ren Provo]

Hi Bill,

I suspect that Merit, with stimulus funding in hand, may have other
non-NANOG interests at this point.  I hope you are able to attend the
community meeting and that Don Welch will clarify Merit's long-term
interest.  Cheers, -ren

2010/5/31 William Norton bill.nor...@gmail.com:


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Did I miss the announcement?

[Ren Provo]

Pretty sure there is no need for Jerry Springer-antics.  Give it time
as requested by many.  This could be a mutual decision to prepare for
the option you listed as 'c'.


On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:13 PM, William Norton bill.nor...@gmail.com wrote:
 I do look forward to hear what Don has to say, but it sounds like Merit is 
 the passive one here -  we will do what the community wants and all that.

 It seems like the side that has ambitions to take over the meeting is 
 actually the one in the spotlight to demonstrate to the community that it has 
 a plan and will do a better job.

 Bill

 On May 31, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Ren Provo ren.pr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Bill,

 I suspect that Merit, with stimulus funding in hand, may have other
 non-NANOG interests at this point.  I hope you are able to attend the
 community meeting and that Don Welch will clarify Merit's long-term
 interest.  Cheers, -ren

 2010/5/31 William Norton bill.nor...@gmail.com:



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] My take on the transition

[Ren Provo]

Well said Dan.  A review of the transition announcement at
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog also noted this is yet
another step in the continuing formalization of Internet governance
institutions.  RIPE, APRICOT, ARIN, ICANN, etc. have all faced
similar junctures over time.  I commend you, Dave and the Steves,
Feldman has certainly been a great source of continuity and reasoned
recommendations, for considering next steps beyond the 2005
restructuring.

The next SC election is not until the October meeting.  I encourage
folks to consider volunteering to lead NANOG into the next ten
year-planning phase.  We have roughly two months to debate, ponder and
reach out to leaders before gathering in San Francisco for the June
meeting.  Please speak up at the community meeting and volunteer if
you are interested and able to participate for a two year term.

Please also consider sponsoring breaks and hosting future NANOG
meetings.  Comcast would still like to host the joint NANOG-ARIN
meeting in October 2011 and we'll work with Merit, or other parties,
to make that happen.  Cheers, -ren


2010/4/18 Daniel Golding dgold...@gmail.com:

 I may be able to offer some clarity on the transition. In the interest of
 full disclosure, I was one of a number of folks who advised the SC after the
 decision had been made. I did not provide any input into the decision to
 separate, one way or another. Once informed of it, my first reaction was,
 like many others: its about time.

 When the current NANOG charter was put it place, 5 years ago, it was in
 response to a lack of governance of NANOG by the constituency. Instead,
 Merit imposed direction through a succession of program managers, some of
 whom were quite capable and pleasant (Craig, et al), and some who were not
 (Susan Harris). At that time, the actions of Merit's program manager for
 NANOG has all but broken the organization. The decision was made to create a
 steering committee, who would select volunteers for other tasks, such as the
 PC, communications committee, and later, the marketing committee. As time
 went by, volunteers took greater charge of NANOG's affairs, but there will
 still several red lines: Merit, of course, controlled the selection of paid
 staff, and also controlled conference venue selection, dates, and other
 important details like the number of events per year. Efforts by successive
 SC's to impact some of these areas were met with frustration, from what I
 understand.

 At the time of the original Charter process, one of the options was to split
 off and form a completely separate organization. For many of us, it was the
 desired option, but we all knew that we simply didn't have the
 infrastructure in place at the time.

 So, why now? Why split NANOG from Merit? I don't know what moved each member
 of the SC to vote as they did, but I have some good guesses based on my
 conversations with each of them. I can't speak for them, but here's my
 conception:

 1) There have been some serious issues with paid staff. Just as when we had
 some very bad Merit staff in place, without recourse, we finally got some
 outstanding staff. And then, we got new staff. The outstanding staff? Fired.
 Why? None of our business. This was and is totally within Merit's rights -
 they are paying folks and they get to decide their employment status.
 However, that may not be the best path for the NANOG organization.

 2) Scheduling conferences has been sometimes difficult because Merit has its
 own calendar which can conflict with NANOG's priorities.

 3) Merit has owned the conference and venue selection part of the
 equation, which is sometimes troubling, as some of the choices have not been
 good fits for our constituency. Again, this is their right - they have
 assumed massive contractual liability. It would be improper for NANOG to
 tell Merit well yes, you have all of this financial liability, but we're
 going to tell you what to do.

 4) Number of conferences a year - many members of the NANOG constituency
 have talked (for at least 5 years) about changing the number of conferences.
 This is worth a good public discussion and vote, in my opinion.
 Unfortunately, because of their staffing situation, Merit wasn't open to the
 idea. Again, Merit has staff to pay and they need a certain financial
 situation to make that happen.

 These are some examples. I'm sure there have been additional issues that
 only the SC has been party to. The key here is that Merit hasn't done
 anything wrong: they simply have different priorities from NANOG and must
 act in their own best interest. They are obligated to do so in order to obey
 their bylaws and fulfill their mission to their constituency. But there's
 the rub: Merit's constituency is NOT NANOG and never has been. They have a
 different (and worthy, might I add) mission, that is divergent from ours. I
 think Merit gets great credit for the work they've done with us, but there
 are places they can't and shouldn't go.

 

Re: austin eats

[Ren Provo]

Daniel I hope you'll be able to join us at Iron Cactus on Sunday night
- http://renster.multiply.com/photos/album/553/Sunday_night_in_Austin

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Daniel Fox d...@smarsh.com wrote:
 Just ate at iron cactus on 6th and both the talapia and spicy shrimp tacos 
 are phenomonal! Margaritas are really good too... 90 plus tequillas to choose 
 from...great staff

 Daniel Fox
 Smarsh Inc

 - Original Message -
 From: Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com
 Sent: 17 February 2010 14:42
 To: North American Network Operators Group na...@merit.edu
 Subject: Re: austin eats


 On Feb 17, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Will Clayton wrote:

 Maudi's on Lake Austin and Taco Deli are always on my menu. We just got some 
 Buffalo Wild Wings in town if you are in to that. If you make it to NXNW get 
 the Calimari. If you wind up ordering pizza, shop local and get the best 
 pizza for the best price in town at Austin's Pizza.

 Austin's is good, but HomeSlice on South Congress is better, and you can walk 
 on down to Trophy's, Continental Club, or the garden at Guero's and take in a 
 band.

 http://www.homeslicepizza.com/
 http://austin.citysearch.com/profile/10210801/austin_tx/trophy_s_bar_grill.html
 http://www.continentalclub.com/
 http://www.guerostacobar.com/

NANOG47 - Program Committee will meet next week to review second round submissions

[Ren Provo]

Hi folks,

There are many interesting abstracts in the tool at
http://pc.nanog.org and we hope to see a few more presentations arrive
prior to next Wednesday.

Lightning talks will not be accepted until October.  That doesn't mean
you can't kick out that first draft to a friend for inspiration!

Election season is also drawing close.  The election timeline is now
online at http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2009elections/

Last but not least, the hotel group rate expires this month -
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/hotel.php

Cheers, -ren

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

[Ren Provo]

One point of clarity here.  Lightning talks are scheduled in a more spur of
the moment fashion than the traditional submission process for general
sessions.  We often schedule lightning talks around a topic with potential
to run short if QA isn't significant or we have a 15 minute gap before a
break.  Unfortunately that means dates, or times, have the potential to
shift and flexibility is required by the party presenting.  Randy was
offered an alternative as soon as it was discovered the original time slot
on Monday was not going to prove viable.  Options later in the meeting were
not chosen by Randy due to his schedule constraints.  If a specific date is
required on the NANOG agenda please consider submitting a presentation well
in advance of posted deadlines for the general sessions.  The NANOG PC does
consider comments made in the tool at http://pc.nanog.org when scheduling
the agenda.  Short duration presentations have been accepted well in advance
of the meeting for about a year now and we welcome interesting topics, much
like Randy details below.  We hope to see Randy back up at the microphone on
stage at future NANOG meetings.  Cheers! -ren

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

 due to nanog pc silliness, my lightning talk on $subject was not given
 in philly.  i had promised to report to nanog the results of our winter
 experiment which used as path poisoning.  here is the lightning talk i
 would have given.

   http://archive.psg.com/090615.nanog-default.pdf

 this is really meant to be a talk, so the slides can be a bit hard.

 on slide 6
  /20 is the as path length of a /20, i.e. a 'normal' distribution,
  as seen from bgp monitors at RV, RIS, and a jillion others
  /25 is the as path length distribution we saw pinging from the /25
  BGP is the as path length distribution we saw from RV/RIS
 i.e. BGP views are significantly skewed.  but most of us knew that.

 on slides 10 and 11, the categories stub, small isp, large isp are from
 a ucla study.  imiho, you should take them with a grain of salt.

 on 12, the reason for the funniness around 30 test points is because, we
 really wanted = 30 test points in an AS.  so if we got close, we
 scanned harder to find them.

 please do check your as at http://psg.com/default/ and then actually
 look at your router config.  i found one of my routers still had a
 default from when i was bringing it up.

 randy

[NANOG-announce] Reminder - NANOG46 registration fees - $525 = $600 on Monday

[Ren Provo]

Hi folks,

Just a few reminders -

The registration fee for NANOG46 is set to go up from US$525 to US$600
on Monday.   https://nanog.merit.edu/registration/

The general program is full at this time.  Lightning talks are being
accepted at http://pc.nanog.org.  Three lightning talks will be
selected next Tuesday for presentation on Monday the 15th of June.

http://nanog46.comcast.net offers suggestions for site-seeing, food
and transport.  Some have asked what is the best way to get to the
Loews Hotel from the Philadelphia Airport.  Without a doubt the train
is the best bang for your $7.  Follow the signs when baggage claim,
ground transportation and exit are mentioned.  You can purchase the
ticket on the train.  Market East is the exit and the hotel is across
the street from the Hard Rock at the corner of 12th  Market.

See you in about a week!  -ren

___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

[Ren Provo]

Ron Bonica is leading a BOF during NANOG46 in Philly which may be of interest -

BOF: IETF OPS  MGMT Area,
Ron Bonica, Juniper Networks
Presentation Date: June 14, 2009, 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM

Abstract:
The IETF OPS  MGMT Area documents management technologies and
operational best common practices. The purpose of this BoF is to
review activities in that area and solicit feedback to determine the
usefulness of those activities to the operator community. We will also
solicit proposals for new work that is of interest to users.

The full agenda is up at - http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/agenda.php
Cheers, -ren


On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:

 On 22 apr 2009, at 22:12, Jack Bates wrote:

 I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the 
 development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected 
 out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published?

 That's certainly one way to look at this, and I'm just as unhappy about how 
 long this has taken as you. On the other hand, it has been argued that these 
 issues are outside the scope of the IETF in the first place, as it's just 
 application of already established protocols, not developing something new. 
 So another way to look at it is that at least the IETF is finally doing 
 something because so far, nobody else has. What would have helped here is 
 more push in this direction.

 If the IETF is talking future and developers are also talking future, us 
 little guys that design, build, and maintain the networks can't really do 
 much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it and just make up their own 
 proprietary methods of doing things. Let the IETF catch up later on.

 People who run networks can do a lot: believe it or not, the IETF really 
 wants input from network operators, especially in the early phases of 
 protocol development when the requirements are established.

 Proprietary methods duking it out in the market place is nice for stuff that 
 happens inside one box or at least within one administrative domain, but it 
 would be a nightmare in broadband deployment where I want my Windows box to 
 talk to my Apple wifi base station and my Motorola cable modem to the ISP's 
 Cisco headend and their Extreme switches and Juniper routers.

[NANOG-announce] NANOG46 - abstracts, trains hotels - oh my!

[Ren Provo]

Hi folks,

NANOG46 is only a few months away and I hear many are getting their ducks in
a row to participate.

We, the Program Committee, would like to remind all who have submitted
abstracts at http://pc.nanog.org that the time has come to get your
presentation materials uploaded.  For those of you still considering
submitting presentations it is not too late to request a BOF, tutorial,
track, or general session slot.  Lightning talk submissions will be welcomed
in May.

Shifting gears to represent the host, Comcast, I would encourage folks to
consider exploring Philly either before or after NANOG46, which runs 14-17
June.  http://nanog46.comcast.net includes links for sightseeing,
socializing and general transportation guidance.  This is a work in
progress, yes it will be IPv6 ready shortly, and if folks have
recommendations for inclusion please do email me directly.

Amtrak is running a special until July (must purchase by 12-Jun-09) which
can significantly reduce costs, a bonus in this economy.  Go to
http://www.amtrak.com and click on 'Hot Deals' for the lower fares on Acela
Express.  Washington, DC to Philly is only $73 and you get to keep your
shoes on!

Philly is a walking city and there is no need to rent a car.  Whether you
arrive by Amtrak or airplane consider using the SEPTA Rail trains to take
you to the conference hotel.  Market East would be the right stop to exit,
also known as Convention Center.  Follow the signs for the Hard Rock Cafe
and you'll spot the Loews Hotel across the street.  Of course if you really
want to explore Philly above ground take the Segway tour -
http://reservations.gophila.com/nexres/activities/detail.cgi?src=10018788ses=1829b368884e04999bcd78b4bc0455e9airport_code=PHLcity=PhlactType=tourssupplier_id=22653

Hotel reservations for the Loews can be made at
http://www.phlgroupbooking.com/NANOG/  The NANOG Group Rate is $199 (plus
15.2% tax) which includes guest room Internet access.
Group rate expires: May 29, 2009

Registration is open and we look forward to a fun NANOG in Philly!

Cheers, -Ren Provo
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: Inauguration streaming traffic

[Ren Provo]

BitGravity did a great job.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Christopher Morrow 
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:

 As an aside... thanks to BBC for streaming this, I couldn't find
 another source that wasn't overloaded/jerky/ugly :(

 Thanks Brandon.

 -Chris

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

[Ren Provo]

Hi Randy (and the cast of characters on this thread),

Could you please put in a lightning talk for this experiment?  It would be
great to hear more about this in .DR.  We're accepting submissions now for
lightning talks on Monday the 26th of January.  http://www.nanogpc.org is
the best place.  Cheers, -ren

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

 On 09.01.13 07:42, Paul Stewart wrote:

 For us, it was annoying - we look for prefix hijackings or what appear
 to be.


 i think herein lies the rub.  it is not prefix hijacking and in no way
 should it appear that way to you.  i suggest tuning your detectors.  i am
 told that path poisoning is used (futilely, we hope to show) in day to day
 ops by folk to try to avert dos attacks.

 randy

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

[Ren Provo]

Fair enough.  Unfortunate, and I'll miss you in .DR, but understood.

Now that doesn't mean other operators can't put in a lightning talk about
the impact or 'event' this triggered in their own NOC environments along
with what they recommend operators do to reduce the spun cycles G

Cheers, -ren

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

  Could you please put in a lightning talk for this experiment? It would
 be great to hear more about this in .DR. We're accepting submissions now
 for lightning talks on Monday the 26th of January.


 a - i will not be in dr.  i really wanted to support the dr meeting,
but it's hard to justify after four years of service.  maybe i'll
make the next one.

 b - we can not present results before papers are submitted.

 c - we hope to present results at ops fora, nanog included, if they
are good enough to warrant as opposed to just good sensationalist
blah blah.

 randy

Re: NANOG 45: Register Now, Hotel Link Available

[Ren Provo]

Hi folks,

As a reminder Peter Cohen is running the new and improved Peering BOF survey
during NANOG45.  If you wouldn't mind answering questions posted at
http://tinyurl.com/bofsurvey after you register we would all appreciate it.
Thanks!  -Ren Provo

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Tom Daly t...@dyndns.com wrote:

 Folks,
 NANOG 45 in the Dominican Republic is fast approaching, so now is the time
 to go get registered for the conference.

 You can register for NANOG 45 at:

 https://nanog.merit.edu/registration/

 I'm also pleased to report that our hotel has provided us with with a
 direct link for online reservations. You can make your reservations online
 at:

 http://cwp.marriott.com/sdqgw/nanog/

 Be aware: the hotel is offering very nice rooms at a great rate (part of
 what should make your travel justification easier), so be sure to register
 soon.

 Also, consider booking travel soon.  A number of airlines have
 substantially discounted flights at the moment, but one never knows when
 they might expire.

 Looking forward to seeing you all in SDQ,

 Tom Daly,
 for the NANOG Program Committee

 --
 Tom Daly
 t...@dyndns.com
 Dynamic Network Services, Inc.
 http://dynamicnetworkservices.com/

Re: Outages BOF - NANOG 44 (los angeles).

[Ren Provo]

Hi Virendra,

Putting my NANOG Program Committee Member hat on, please work with Joel
Jaeggli, also on the NANOG PC.  He is moderating a Tools BOF Monday
afternoon at 4:30 in the Heinsbergen Room as per
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/agenda.php

If you are interested in leading an outages specific BOF please put in a
request at http://www.nanogpc.org for NANOG45.  January 2009 will be here
before you know it!   Cheers, -ren

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:26 PM, virendra rode [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1

 Hi,

 Just wondering if there's any interest in meeting up during nanog 44
 (los angeles) and sharing your thoughts, challenges or your outages
 experience in general or would like to simply vent and empty your head.


 Topics of interest:

 * Service provider(s) participation in outages notification?

 * What monitoring  tools do you use to monitor your environment? How do
 they work for your environment? Does it scale for your environment? What
 would you like to see out of such a tool (open-source or commercial).

 Collaboration/participation is one of the key things that I'm aiming to
 achieve w/o the need for an overarching organizational body and have a
 broad base of representation. So come and speak your mind.


 Please respond to me directly and not the list so I can arrange for a
 meeting room.


 grateful thanks,


 regards,
 /virendra
 moderator, outages.org
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

 iD8DBQFI5SB9pbZvCIJx1bcRApU5AJ916/9T3+k0swPIyFMQfEJBWLNAmQCgoyDo
 KD7qhBFmjfcrmSJTXhDmJtk=
 =641j
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-

[NANOG-announce] Reminder: Presentation materials for NANOG44/45 are welcomed

[Ren Provo]

Hi folks,

The tentative agenda for NANOG44 will be released shortly and registration
will open for the October meeting.  There are many time slots marked as
'speaker - pending' or 'tutorial - pending' due to abstracts lacking actual
presentations.  We believe there are many good ideas lurking within the
abstracts and highly encourage those who consider their submission a work in
progress to complete the presentation portion and submit it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] today.

Thanks! -Ren Provo, NANOG PC
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

[NANOG-announce] Reminder - NANOG PC tool is accepting presentations for both NANOG 44 45

[Ren Provo]

Hi folks,

As mentioned in the NANOG Program Committee call minutes, posted at
http://www.nanog.org/pc.nanog44_minutes.html, we are currently accepting
presentations for both NANOG44 and NANOG45.  Several abstracts have been
received for the October meeting and we are going to assume they are
intended for NANOG44.  Please clearly mark submissions if NANOG45 is your
intention.

Our next call is scheduled for early July so keep the submissions, and
promised slides for those with abstracts in the tool at present, flowing.

Thanks! -Ren, on behalf of the NANOG Program Committee
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: Comcast peering contacts

[Ren Provo]

Hi Manolo,

Peeringdb.com is the best place to cross-check what is available at a
certain IX for public or private interconnection.
http://as7922.peeringdb.com is what you are looking for WRT Comcast.
http://www.comcast.com/peering details settlement-free interconnection
guidelines.

Cheers, -ren

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:40 PM, manolo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 All,

  I have misplaced the website that lists the contacts for bgp peering with
 a provider at a NAP. Does anyone have this link handy or have a email for
 requesting direct peering with comcast?



 Thanks,


 Manolo

Re: [NANOG] Comcast (AS 7922 - 33491) issues?

[Ren Provo]

Hi Darrell,

This should be resolved shortly. -ren

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Darrell Hyde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm seeing tons of availability issues to networks with AS paths ending
 in 7922 33491. A couple of the prefixes in question are 98.214.0.0/15,
 69.137.240.0/20, 73.117.0.0/16, and 67.175.0.0/16.

 I spoke with Abovenet earlier this morning - they say its due to L3
 suppressing those announcements to some of their peers. Initially I
 thought they were just making things up, until I started seeing %
 Network not in table responses to BGP lookups on the router where I
 peer with Sprint:

 #show ip bgp 98.214.184.18
 % Network not in table

 #show ip bgp 69.137.251.134
 % Network not in table

 And yet...

 #show ip bgp 98.214.184.18
 BGP routing table entry for 98.214.0.0/15, version 26493985
 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
  Advertised to update-groups:
 3  4
  3491 7922 33491
63.218.31.1 from 63.218.31.1 (63.218.30.9)
  Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
  Community: 228787176 228787177 228794098
  6395 3356 7922 33491
216.140.65.73 from 216.140.65.73 (216.140.9.56)
  Origin IGP, metric 160, localpref 100, valid, external

 #show ip bgp 69.137.251.134
 BGP routing table entry for 69.137.240.0/20, version 26493909
 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
  Advertised to update-groups:
 3  4
  3491 7922 33491
63.218.31.1 from 63.218.31.1 (63.218.30.9)
  Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
  Community: 228787176 228787177 228794098
  6395 3356 7922 33491
216.140.65.73 from 216.140.65.73 (216.140.9.56)
  Origin IGP, metric 160, localpref 100, valid, external

 Based on what I'm seeing, someone out there has to be seeing similar
 behavior. Anybody? Bueller?

 D.

 ___
 NANOG mailing list
 NANOG@nanog.org
 http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

___
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Ren Provo]

We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
discussions.

A rough cut from SJC was made available during the NANOG PC call this week
but should be posted soon for NANOG42.

Previous survey material -
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/surveyresults.html
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0706/surveyresults.html
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/surveyresults.html
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/nanog38_suvey_results.html
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/surveys/
etc.

Cheers, -ren
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Joel spewed:

 I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of
 program elements. That would be an abrogation of the responsibility
 invested the pc by the charter.

 Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program
 element would be with the goal of helping it grow.


 Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first?


 -M

 ___
 Nanog-futures mailing list
 Nanog-futures@nanog.org
 http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Ren Provo]

On behalf of the NANOG PC:

Nothing has been submitted in the NANOG tool and nothing has been declined.

The survey results from NANOG42 this week have not been made available to
the PC yet.

We would like to review community feedback on this topic.

Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would like to
see a more diverse selection of topics at the very least.
Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the NANOG PC,
are able to review feedback and perhaps expand the cramped format into a
track.

Thanks, -Ren Provo, NANOG Program Committee, Vice-Chair

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
  Chris Malayter wrote:

  Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and
  any
  meeting since.
 
  Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes
  when
  released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're
  looking for.

 Let's stop dancing around the issue.  There was discussion regarding
 the Peering BoF amongst the SC  PC.  There is no reason to hide this
 fact - just the opposite.  And there were at least some provisional
 outcomes from those discussions.  I am unclear on why those decisions
 are not being announced to the community.

 The question is where we stand in the process.

 If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop
 speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an
 official request for input from the community.

 If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it
 ASAP.

 Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way.  We had
 a revolution, let's follow our own rules.  As Randy like to proclaim
 every 14 ms, let's have some transparency.  What was said, why was it
 said, and what decisions were made?

 SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over
 leaking deaggs. :)

 --
 TTFN,
 patrick


 ___
 Nanog-futures mailing list
 Nanog-futures@nanog.org
 http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Submitted presentation request...

[Ren Provo]

Hi Paul, Randy  NANOG-Futures,

We have a pretty full agenda this time and have received 5-10
additional presentations since the PC call last week.  Given there are
hosted events each night it will be difficult to expand the agenda and
open up new slots for all the good presentations.  We may need to ask
folks to trim their presentations down more towards the 10-20 minute
range in hopes of allowing as many as possible.  Sorry Paul but this
is a timing constraint more than anything else.  Cheers, -Ren on
behalf of the PC

On Jan 13, 2008 10:47 PM, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1

 - -- Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  In any event, I don't know how to directly contact the the NANOG PC
  folks as a follow-up and figured this might be the best way (instead
  of resubmitting through the web cgi stuff).
 
 from the bottom of http://nanog.org/mtg-0802/callforpresent.html
 
 You may instead submit the presentation information and draft slides in
 email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 that should probably work

 Thanks, done.

 - - ferg

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017)

 wj8DBQFHittDq1pz9mNUZTMRAi3xAKDsLw57j5C+i4YjX3e8nyS9cqSNhQCeJqD/
 Aw13enKH1liD8HiQ/KV5p0A=
 =oUMb
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-



 --
 Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
  Engineering Architecture for the Internet
  fergdawg(at)netzero.net
  ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/


 ___

 Nanog-futures mailing list
 Nanog-futures@nanog.org
 http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Get those presenations in for NANOG42 please

[Ren Provo]

The most interesting part of my attempt to spark participation in
future meetings is that Merit reminded me of a mailing list I hadn't
given any thought to at all - NANOG Announce.  Perhaps that is where
the plea for assistance should have been distributed.  I didn't post
it on the main list to prevent a thirty-man thread about how it
wouldn't fit into a switch, router, or electrical outlet in an
exchange point.  Meeting preparation seemed to be more futures and
less operations focused.  I just wanted to give an opportunity for
those with good intent to make the deadline.  Period.

Cheers, -Ren Provo, Program Committee

On Dec 4, 2007 6:37 AM, David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- On Tue, 12/4/07, Robert E. Seastrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  From: Robert E. Seastrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Get those presenations in for NANOG42 please
  To: Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2007, 5:55 AM

  Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  writes:
 
   This is the second time someone from the Program
  Committee has posted
   something that seemed to be asking for something to
  help our success
   or informing people about standard (revenue generating
  even) functions
   of NANOG and that they believe that these types of
  emails related to
   the conference program are not relevant to the main
  list.
  
   Why is that?
 
  First, it was a post to -futures; whether or not it was
  off-topic for
  the main list is completely beside the point.  Even if it
  was on the
  main list though (and frankly, I think it SHOULD HAVE been
  posted to
  the main list), this is a CFP for *our own conference*.
  How on earth
  could it be not relevant to the main list?
 
  Please do us all a favor and stop undermining the
  credibility of your
  colleagues on the MLC with this tripe.  Looking for
  opportunities to
  twist the words of the AUP does not serve anyone's
  interests.

 I think Marty was asking why it was posted to -futures rather than to the 
 main list, with the implication that it would have been on-topic there, and 
 would certainly reach a wider audience.

 David Barak
 Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise:
 http://www.listentothefranchise.com


  
 
 Looking for last minute shopping deals?
 Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
 http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping


 ___
 Nanog-futures mailing list
 Nanog-futures@nanog.org
 http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

[Nanog-futures] Get those presenations in for NANOG42 please

[Ren Provo]

Hi folks,

This is a reminder to submit presentations for NANOG42 in San Jose, CA
to be held February 2008.  Quality abstracts have been arriving over
the past month.  A few people promised to send along presentations in
December.  If anyone has a work in progress to submit please do so
now.  The program committee will meet this week to pull together the
rough draft of the agenda for NANOG42.  We have confirmed a keynote
speaker and several interesting panels are on the schedule already.
We have some flexibility for tutorials on Sunday and a few general
assembly speaker slots at this point.  There will be blocks for
lightning talks each day and you may submit presentations in advance
of February.  This is a good thing based on survey info.   Our goal is
to set forth a solid agenda for folks to utilize when mulling travel
requests this month.

http://www.nanog.org/presentations.html is the best location to review
for complete submission guidelines.

Many thanks in advance!
-Ren Provo, Vice-Chair, NANOG Program Committee

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures