Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated. Thanks! :) Matt
On that same topic, Peering, I would like to see the green peering dot for name badges. Kind of "one" of the fundamental things that NANOG came into existing over. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
Thanks! :)
Matt
The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better option. There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the general session throughout the program. Regards, -Dave On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>, wrote:
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
Thanks! :)
Matt
The peering social at previous NANOG meetings has been excellent and very useful. As you mentioned, the peering personals are perhaps not as valuable. It would be great to see the social portion come back in some form. Jay On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Dave Temkin <dave@temk.in> wrote:
The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better option.
There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the general session throughout the program.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>, wrote:
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
Thanks! :)
Matt
Someone will need to volunteer and organize this track just like others. It has been challenging to find content. Topic can be contraversial and of course people might not want to always speak as open as they should in order to make the time useful. I have really liked peering bof personally from many years ago where it provided a great platform to speak. I will volunteer to organize peering bof in nanog 70 and present it to PC's consideration as it seems some folks want to see that back including myself Mehmet On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:14 PM Jay Hanke <jayhanke@gmail.com> wrote:
The peering social at previous NANOG meetings has been excellent and very useful. As you mentioned, the peering personals are perhaps not as valuable. It would be great to see the social portion come back in some form.
Jay
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Dave Temkin <dave@temk.in> wrote:
The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better option.
There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the general session throughout the program.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>, wrote:
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
Thanks! :)
Matt
I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and today there is nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars at any office supply retailer. Just a thought. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better option.
There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the general session throughout the program.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>, wrote:
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
Thanks! :)
Matt
Hi Bob, This was inadvertent and we will bring this back for NANOG 70. Regards, -Dave On Feb 6, 2017, 6:58 PM -0500, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com>, wrote:
I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and today there is nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars at any office supply retailer.
Just a thought.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better option.
There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the general session throughout the program.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>, wrote:
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
Thanks! :)
Matt
I would like to see the session continue in some form. Social was close to good. The peering presentations weren't as useful to me personally. They sometimes made the time for actual peering conversations too short. The extra food and drinks were not important to me personally. ... Perhaps an "extended break" 45 minutes, with typical break food, and no presentations. Or if you want, a *silent* rolling slide show on a screen, with 1-slide per submitter, for peering news items or general peering requests... Cheaper... quieter... shorter... But having all the people in the same room at the same time for the same purpose, usually pretty useful. 2 cents, John Kemp On 2/6/17 9:17 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
Hi Bob,
This was inadvertent and we will bring this back for NANOG 70.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 6:58 PM -0500, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com>, wrote:
I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and today there is nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars at any office supply retailer.
Just a thought.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better option.
There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the general session throughout the program.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>, wrote:
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
Thanks! :)
Matt
Thank you, that's great feedback and great ideas. Regards, -Dave On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:51 PM, John Kemp <kemp@network-services.uoregon.edu
wrote:
I would like to see the session continue in some form. Social was close to good.
The peering presentations weren't as useful to me personally. They sometimes made the time for actual peering conversations too short.
The extra food and drinks were not important to me personally.
...
Perhaps an "extended break" 45 minutes, with typical break food, and no presentations. Or if you want, a *silent* rolling slide show on a screen, with 1-slide per submitter, for peering news items or general peering requests...
Cheaper... quieter... shorter... But having all the people in the same room at the same time for the same purpose, usually pretty useful.
2 cents, John Kemp
On 2/6/17 9:17 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
Hi Bob,
This was inadvertent and we will bring this back for NANOG 70.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 6:58 PM -0500, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com>, wrote:
I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and today there is nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars at any office supply retailer.
Just a thought.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better option.
There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the general session throughout the program.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>, wrote:
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
Thanks! :)
Matt
participants (6)
-
Bob Evans -
Dave Temkin -
Jay Hanke -
John Kemp -
Matthew Petach -
Mehmet Akcin