A couple comments...
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 think there should be a codified budget and
The NewNOG governance working group, chaired by Steve Gibbard, has published
a set of proposed bylaws for the corporation. These may be found at:
If these issues have been resolved and I missed them, apologies in advance.
Would you elaborate on 5.1 Membership Qualifications:
... who by
Steve, overall good job. A few comments:
1. On life members, not sure you want to include that this is 10x membership in
the bylaws since the fee here could change over time.
2. I think we do need a finance committee since you have this on most boards.
3. On legislation, I think if the
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,
Thanks for all the feedback received so far (and I'm sure there will be
much more, which will also be very welcome).
The membership section of this is a product of the Membership Working
Group, chaired by Kris Foster. Everything else in the bylaws came from
the Governance Working Group. I'll
Agree 100% with Joe.
I think that determining who gets the nod might be a good task for the
Membership Committee.
- Dan
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
Just as an FYI - a lot of the membership stuff got cribbed from IEEE
(thanks, IEEE guys!), as they are a related group and there's no need
to reinvent the wheel. That being said, there will be a few cases like
this, where we'll need to clean up the verbiage. There is nothing
actually implied here
Another +1 UBNT. We're using the NanoStation2 to deliver 802.11g to
remote camps in Afghanistan. They advertise a 60 deg LOS signal but it
seems to do much better. Supposedly they will reach 15 km but we've
never tried to use them that far. What's really neat is they come
ready to mount with some
UBNT is fine if you need a bridged network, using them in junction to
MikroTik's RouterBOARDs will give you all of the tools you will need to be
successful as well. Routing, traffic shaping etc.Contact me off-list if
you need pre-built / configured solutions with either hardware.
Of course the high level of oversub is an issue
We'll disagree then. Oversub makes access affordable.
We don't disagree. Of course oversub makes access affordable. The point
here is that carriers aren't willing to commit to supporting some level
of service. Many people have
Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
Networking team administering. We are now being told by the Systems team
that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be changed
over to the Microsoft DNS service run on domain controllers. The reason
given is
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd316373.aspx
On Sep 20, 2010, at 10:04 AM, Tom Mikelson wrote:
Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
Networking team administering. We are now being told by the Systems team
that they will be responsible for DNS
Microsoft Active directory absolutely needs dynamic DNS. However, I know that
it has been integrated with bind, so I don't believe it needs Microsoft DNS. A
common procedure is to delegate a subdomain to the microsoft dns server and let
the Active Directory forest be built within that
It does not need MS DNS. $dayjob uses Infoblox appliances (BIND under
the hood) for DNS and it works fine with AD. You just need to make sure
you allow the Domain Controllers to do dynamic updates (AD uses SRV
records).
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:04:49 -0600
Tom Mikelson tmikel...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2010-09-20 16:04, Tom Mikelson wrote:
Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
Networking team administering. We are now being told by the Systems team
that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be changed
over to the Microsoft DNS service
Active directly is tied fairly closely to it's DNS.
For example, if a client needs to find a Domain Controller, it does a
DNS 'SRV' query for (I think, I'm doing this from memory)
'_LDAP._TCP.domain.com/org/net/whatever'. I assume other 'services' like
LDAP are 'advertised' (if you can call it
That has been the stock MS answer for a long time, but at least W2K8 makes a
few
concessions. Technet has some references on making bind configurations to
work with
AD, specifically the statement (and here's perhaps the best place to start...):
When a domain controller is promoted, a file
I have seen BIND to MS DNS zone transfers work fine before.
--
Thanks, Joe
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L
matlo...@exempla.org wrote:
Active directly is tied fairly closely to it's DNS.
For example, if a client needs to find a Domain Controller, it does a
DNS 'SRV'
Our Corporate Overlords run DNS on a mixed environment of Windows and
Other (mostly other). Back when we were still a small company, we moved
our DNS from BIND to Windows for ease of administration. It CAN be
done, but it's a huge PITA since AD does things in DNS that aren't
standard (and in
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Michael Sokolov
msoko...@ivan.harhan.org wrote:
Ditto with CLECs like Covad-now-MegaPath: even though they don't get
access to the FTTN infrastructure, no telco is evicting their legacy CO
presence. Therefore, if a kooky customer like me wishes to forego fiber
On 9/20/2010 9:13 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L wrote:
You MAY be able to duplicate all the records in BIND, but expect random
things to not work, and have to do a bunch of research figuring out what
DNS query it's doing, and what the proper answer is.
The AD server will populate out the necessary
If your AD domain is a subdomain, like corp.job.com, you can always delegate
the subdomain's name service to the MS DNS servers from the BIND servers. That
way, you don't have to make huge changes to your existing environment.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Mikelson
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Tony Varriale tvarri...@comcast.net wrote:
Of course the high level of oversub is an issue
We'll disagree then. Oversub makes access affordable.
Sure, at 10:1. At 100:1, oversub makes the service perform like crap.
With QOS, it still performs like crap.
Joe Greco wrote:
In the last ~10 years, wholesale bandwidth costs have fallen, what, from
maybe $100/mbit to $1/mbit? I don't even know or care just how accurate
that is, but roughly speaking it's true.
In the last ~10 years, DSL and cable prices have stayed pretty much
consistent. Our local
On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:04 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Of course the high level of oversub is an issue
We'll disagree then. Oversub makes access affordable.
We don't disagree. Of course oversub makes access affordable. The point
here is that carriers aren't willing to commit to supporting
On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Tony Varriale tvarri...@comcast.net wrote:
Of course the high level of oversub is an issue
We'll disagree then. Oversub makes access affordable.
Sure, at 10:1. At 100:1, oversub makes the service
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:43 AM
To: William Herrin
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:59 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:51
A real threat? Oh, please, get real. A _real_ threat is what happens as
cable and satellite providers keep jacking their rates, and more and more
of the next generation of television viewers stop subscribing to
conventional television distribution because they're able to get content
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Justin Horstman
justin.horst...@gorillanation.com wrote:
Devil's Advocate here,
What would you say to ISP A that provided similar
speeds as ISP B, but B took payments from content
providers and then provided the service for free?
Gives you the choice, ISP A,
Devil's Advocate here,
What would you say to ISP A that provided similar speeds as ISP B, but B took
payments from content providers and then provided the service for free?
Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B, which is free, and most
people wouldn't know the difference.
On 9/20/10 11:38 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Devil's Advocate here,
What would you say to ISP A that provided similar speeds as ISP B,
but B took payments from content providers and then provided the
service for free?
Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B, which is free,
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Mon Sep 20 13:24:42
2010
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:25:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
To: Justin Horstman justin.horst...@gorillanation.com
Cc: NANOG
32 matches
Mail list logo
