Martin Hannigan wrote:
3. Cross posting is prohibited.
I think this needs more clarification, like Cross posting to other
lists is prohibited, CCing individuals are permitted. I see no
technical difference between cross posting to another list or just a
list if individuals.
8.
Alex Pilosov wrote:
8. Autoresponders sending mail either to the list or to the poster
are prohibited.
I also think this needs additional language to ensure that it is within
the realm of the authority of the MLC/NANOG. NANOG has no authority to
prohibit autoresponses that result in
Martin Hannigan wrote:
What would work is for people to post on topic so that the list is
interesting and relevant.
Since what people want to talk about is mostly off-topic for the nanog@
list, does this mean that NANOG itself is no longer interested in being
the venue for network operators
Adrian Chadd wrote:
Today's networking area is very very different from where I'm sitting.
Networking can be learnt reasonably successful from a book and consultants
are called in when things aren't quite working right or its time for an upgrade.
I have not met many consultants that I would
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
theres a lot more competition for meetings, and they have diversified -
the industry has evolved.
i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho, maybe
that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it to your
next SC meeting?
I don't
Joe Abley wrote:
No, there's a fixed overhead from having N x Merit FTEs doing NANOG
stuff year-round, housing NANOG servers, being covered by UMich
insurance, accounting, blah, blah. I'm not an accountant, as you can
probably tell, but I think that's the right high-level answer.
Just out
William B. Norton wrote:
The big $$$ is to the hotel - $105K for 1 mtg.
This is just for the conference rooms? That's a lot more expensive that
I would have thought.
The bottom line, I think you need a few FTEs no matter how you manage NANOG.
No argument there. There will always be a
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
addresses. But of those few many are those doing P2P sharing
especially with BitTorent and this application requires open port
on the user end, so in fact P2P and BT may prove to be the cornerstone
to getting wider use of IPv6 after we ran out
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And in 6-12 months the new Vista will start replacing XP,
Will start replacing XP on new consumer-grade computers. Corporations
will take another 2-4 years to switch, and other people might have
upgraded to windows 98 from 3.11 by then.
I
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I think the bigger problem would be that of a larger company running
out of RFC 1918 space, for various reasons.
If its corporate system, they'd also end up using NAT (many already do).
The problem would be for webhosts and ASPs who have no
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
ospf doesn't, for router-id on cisco's atleast, as Warren pointed out :(
however! switching from ospf to 'another igp' (ISIS would work well) would
avoid that, slide off ospf and onto ISIS, kill ospf when all next-hops
switch, which should be
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
regular email forwarding IF you filter first
And if the customer specifically requests that YOU do not filter his
email, or set up a system that allows him to see ALL email, even if ti is
tagged as spam?
Personally, I feel that at some point,
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, David Hubbard wrote:
Just curious, do most vendors' hardware need to hit the cpu when doing
policy-based routing?
As far as I know, the hardware that you are likely using from the major
company in the bay area is going to put all PBR traffic through the CPU.
Other
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Matt Bazan wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if there was an online, updated daily, website that
listed real quotes oraganized by region in the country and company size?
Yes, it would be great, however it won't work.
I think so. Here's what I propose. I will design and host
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Bill Stewart wrote:
In re-applying for whitelisting, I do see that AOL requires a minimum
of 100 emails/month to maintain a whitelist entry. This is new to me,
and would be worth nothing for others who may be adding or removing
servers.
Sounds like an obvious
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Matt Ghali wrote:
I've resigned myself to it being one of the things I get paid to do.
Ah yes, and don't forget that you can usually get rewarded for the time
that you have to spend listening to the sales pitch by squeezing out a
lunch or dinner or two out of the sales
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Matt Bazan wrote:
anonymous ;-) Besides, in today's crap economy, is a vendor really
going to come down on a client for violating an NDA and throw away ?
I personally don't have experience with this but I'm willing to bet that
most NDAs are more bark than bite.
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
So, let's do the logic, as this is a simple schoolchild exercise.
[snip]
Therefore, if one is in mainland China to do business, then one does not
have a conscience or a spine.
It is probably that one does not have a conscience, is insane and does
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Jared Mauch wrote:
I once spoke to a construction manager at comcast for their
network buildouts. With my local township, they need to have 20 homes
per linear mile along the route to justify a build. While my street
has 11 homes, and 3 adjacent (where my private
19 matches
Mail list logo
