I Ar Es, At least they have received the 2610:30::/32 allocation from ARIN. Lets see if they how taxing they find IPv6 ;) Greets, Jeroen -- OrgName: Internal Revenue Service OrgID: IRS Address: 1111 Constitution Ave. NW City: Washington StateProv: DC PostalCode: 20224 Country: US NetRange: 2610:0030:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2610:0030:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF CIDR: 2610:0030:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/32 NetName: IRSNET6 NetHandle: NET6-2610-30-1 Parent: NET6-2610-1 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.TREAS.GOV NameServer: NS2.TREAS.GOV NameServer: NS21.TREAS.GOV NameServer: NS1.CIS.FED.GOV Comment: RegDate: 2006-02-13 Updated: 2006-02-13
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I Ar Es,
At least they have received the 2610:30::/32 allocation from ARIN. Lets see if they how taxing they find IPv6 ;)
so.. this is surprising why? the us-gov mandate for ipv6 uptake will mean lots of us-gov folks will be spinning up justifications that they are a 'service provider' and need a /32... cause they won't accept PA space (or I don't think they will accept PA space as a long term solution) ... or I might be smoking crack :) who knows.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I Ar Es,
At least they have received the 2610:30::/32 allocation from ARIN. Lets see if they how taxing they find IPv6 ;)
so.. this is surprising why? the us-gov mandate for ipv6 uptake will mean lots of us-gov folks will be spinning up justifications that they are a 'service provider' and need a /32... cause they won't accept PA space (or I don't think they will accept PA space as a long term solution) ...
or I might be smoking crack :) who knows.
- ------------------ resistance is futile, you will be assimilated :-) regards, /virendra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD8sY0pbZvCIJx1bcRAu6vAJ0dlSiJvkDWkXtZ1oHIRZQrNRHqdACgscec 2GCg+nM2inuo62oBau4KEh0= =bK4r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeroen Massar wrote:
I Ar Es,
At least they have received the 2610:30::/32 allocation from ARIN. Lets see if they how taxing they find IPv6 ;)
And who'd have thought they would be such late filers :-) [IPv6 whois information for NET6-2001-49C8-1 ] [whois.arin.net] OrgName: US Department of the Interior OrgID: UDI-5 Address: 625 Herndon Parkway Address: MS 012 City: Herndon StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20170-5416 Country: US NetRange: 2001:49C8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:49C8:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF CIDR: 2001:49C8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/32 NetName: USDOI NetHandle: NET6-2001-49C8-1 Parent: NET6-2001-4800-0 NetType: Direct Allocation Comment: RegDate: 2005-11-10 Updated: 2005-11-10
Greets, Jeroen
--
OrgName: Internal Revenue Service OrgID: IRS Address: 1111 Constitution Ave. NW City: Washington StateProv: DC PostalCode: 20224 Country: US
NetRange: 2610:0030:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2610:0030:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF CIDR: 2610:0030:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/32 NetName: IRSNET6 NetHandle: NET6-2610-30-1 Parent: NET6-2610-1 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.TREAS.GOV NameServer: NS2.TREAS.GOV NameServer: NS21.TREAS.GOV NameServer: NS1.CIS.FED.GOV Comment: RegDate: 2006-02-13 Updated: 2006-02-13
- -- ========= bep -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD8ipJE1XcgMgrtyYRApkdAJ9oRi468Hv+I9xbiqx2OdA50a5eWACg8tRS 7KOT+k6IS8v4ArRo0Avs0NU= =QGN4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
A thought I had on the plane last night about the disconnect between the NANOG and IETF community which leaves protocol development to run open-loop. Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a reasonable distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be mitigated. This will mean that people who regularly attend both will have overlap issues, but if one meeting every year or two is joint there is an opportunity for those who can't justify the extra trips to at least have some feedback to try and close the loop on protocol design. Tony
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:35:19 PST, Tony Hain said:
Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a reasonable distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
The IETF apparently has some major scheduling problems as it is, because there are very few venues that can handle the number of people that show up *and* have the right mix of large rooms and many smaller break-out rooms. Trying to get it into a hotel opposite a NANOG would just exacerbate the problem. And there's nothing stopping NANOG types from joining an IETF working group and participating via e-mail - there's a large number of people who have contributed to the IETF process and never actually been sighted at an IETF meeting.
I agree that attendance is not required, but it can help some discussions. Given the logistical differences it would be much easier to schedule NANOG into a nearby hotel than to try to move the IETF around. For example this time if NANOG had been a month later it would have been in the same city yet different hotels. I understand that synchronized meetings it not trivial, but it is worth considering. Tony
-----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:10 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:35:19 PST, Tony Hain said:
Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a reasonable distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
The IETF apparently has some major scheduling problems as it is, because there are very few venues that can handle the number of people that show up *and* have the right mix of large rooms and many smaller break-out rooms. Trying to get it into a hotel opposite a NANOG would just exacerbate the problem.
And there's nothing stopping NANOG types from joining an IETF working group and participating via e-mail - there's a large number of people who have contributed to the IETF process and never actually been sighted at an IETF meeting.
So, NANOG has worked in the past (eg: ARIN) at joint meetings at a venue before, perhaps something similar would work. I find it interesting that NANOG and IETF are both in Dallas about a month from each other and both parties likely navigated the logistics issues of connectivity, etc.. for these hotels for a slightly overlapping audience. Do people think something like the NANOG-ARIN would work for NANOG-IETF? That might allow cross-breeding/ROI/whatnot and value to both communities. - jared On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:17:46PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
I agree that attendance is not required, but it can help some discussions.
Given the logistical differences it would be much easier to schedule NANOG into a nearby hotel than to try to move the IETF around. For example this time if NANOG had been a month later it would have been in the same city yet different hotels. I understand that synchronized meetings it not trivial, but it is worth considering.
Tony
-----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:10 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:35:19 PST, Tony Hain said:
Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a reasonable distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
The IETF apparently has some major scheduling problems as it is, because there are very few venues that can handle the number of people that show up *and* have the right mix of large rooms and many smaller break-out rooms. Trying to get it into a hotel opposite a NANOG would just exacerbate the problem.
And there's nothing stopping NANOG types from joining an IETF working group and participating via e-mail - there's a large number of people who have contributed to the IETF process and never actually been sighted at an IETF meeting.
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Of course, there is nothing stopping NANOG or anyone else from collocating their meetings to be near the IETF's (in time or space)... but right now they would have a tough time figuring where that would be :) The IETF commits to having its meetings not collide with certain other meetings, and dates are typically set some years in advance : http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt Because of the recent reorganization, the IETF meetings are only specified through 2007, but this will shortly be extended for another few years. Once set, these date cannot be changed except for force majure. Recently IETF meetings have not been announced too long in advance (this summer's location is still officially TBD on this list, for example). I know that the IAD is scrambling to fill in the "where" part of this list into the future. Hopefully, in the near future the IAOC and the IAD will have meeting sites planned out 2 years or so in advance. Maybe, then, a collocation could be discussed. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
So, NANOG has worked in the past (eg: ARIN) at joint meetings at a venue before, perhaps something similar would work.
I find it interesting that NANOG and IETF are both in Dallas about a month from each other and both parties likely navigated the logistics issues of connectivity, etc.. for these hotels for a slightly overlapping audience.
Do people think something like the NANOG-ARIN would work for NANOG-IETF? That might allow cross-breeding/ROI/whatnot and value to both communities.
- jared
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:17:46PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
I agree that attendance is not required, but it can help some discussions.
Given the logistical differences it would be much easier to schedule NANOG into a nearby hotel than to try to move the IETF around. For example this time if NANOG had been a month later it would have been in the same city yet different hotels. I understand that synchronized meetings it not trivial, but it is worth considering.
Tony
-----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:10 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:35:19 PST, Tony Hain said:
Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a reasonable distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
The IETF apparently has some major scheduling problems as it is, because there are very few venues that can handle the number of people that show up *and* have the right mix of large rooms and many smaller break-out rooms. Trying to get it into a hotel opposite a NANOG would just exacerbate the problem.
And there's nothing stopping NANOG types from joining an IETF working group and participating via e-mail - there's a large number of people who have contributed to the IETF process and never actually been sighted at an IETF meeting.
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:35:19 -0800, "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> said:
A thought I had on the plane last night about the disconnect between the NANOG and IETF community which leaves protocol development to run open-loop.
The real problem is that people have unrealistic expectations wrt the IETF. What happened to the "engineering spirit" that dominated the internet-community before it was invaded by telco-guys in the late 90s? A couple points: 1. IETF does not and should not innovate. 2. IETF never did, can not, will not and should not be expected to solve anyone's problem. Sound bad? Not really. The IETF's role is to preserve and protect technology for public consumption. If there's a problem, solve it. If the solution is any good it may have the potential to become a standard later, but the solution should always come first. There are plenty of organisations making paper-standards going nowhere. There's enough people trying to turn the IETF into another useless papermill already. Today there are IETF-standards in progress for which there exist no implementation. Not even experimental code. Such standards are most likely DOA, so why bother? OTOH, NANOG-people should be more involved in core engineering issues. Most nanog'ers, with the exception of those representing small companies which don't separate engineering from operations, belong in the engineering category anyway. The problem is to convince their L8+ that their company never will rule the world alone, and that it may be wise to let their engineers cooperate with competitors on the some of the big issues. //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Tony Hain wrote:
A thought I had on the plane last night about the disconnect between the NANOG and IETF community which leaves protocol development to run open-loop.
[Hm, what happened last night that I missed] I rather thought today's talk (last one in morning) by Randy Bush might have been pushed you to write this ...
Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a reasonable distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
You mean like NANOG and IETF both having meeting in Dallas?
This will mean that people who regularly attend both will have overlap issues
Its difficult enough to make it for one week for conference. Taking two weeks off for two conferences is too much to ask for must of us I think.
, but if one meeting every year or two is joint there is an opportunity for those who can't justify the extra trips to at least have some feedback to try and close the loop on protocol design.
I think better way is to have at least one track (from 2nd part of day) at NANOG devoted to IETF related issues. New BOFs that happen at IETF can be repeated at NANOG plus people from IETF might discuss current milestones and direction for workgroup of interest to those at NANOG. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
opportunity for those who can't justify the extra trips to at least have some feedback to try and close the loop on protocol design.
Joint meetings are all well and good but are not necessary for feedback. NANOG folks can join IETF mailing lists here http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html and post their feedback. Or, better yet, they can write their studied opinions in an Internet Draft and submit that to the IETF. There are guidelines and a checklist here http://www.ietf.org/ID.html for those who are willing to take the time. Note that because this document is a draft, submitted for discussion and comment, it is not necessary to be as complete as an RFC. Some drafts that eventually become RFCs, go through many revisions. The point is that the IETF is open to receiving feedback, ideas, opinions, in written form. You don't have to go to a meeting and argue your case in a room full of hostile vendors and programmers. A steady stream of Internet drafts and mailing list comments from operators will probably have more effect that a few meeting visits. --Michael Dillon
Funny that shim6 is being mentioned. The corresponding open mic session at 35 showed how gathering people for 20 minutes of complaining can effectively replace long, protracted email threads. There was even unicast chatter about trying to coordinate NOGs with engineering. Per, I'd like to take exception with your "exclude small companies" remark. This thread is about tighter engineering and ops involvement, so why shoot down those who have the two tightly coupled? Why eschew people who work both sides of the fence? Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
Funny that shim6 is being mentioned. The corresponding open mic session at 35 showed how gathering people for 20 minutes of complaining can effectively replace long, protracted email threads.
and what was the effect in the ietf? zippo. randy
RB> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:26:47 -0600 RB> From: Randy Bush RB> and what was the effect in the ietf? zippo. Exactly. I'm claiming that the meeting was a more effective vehicle than a mailing list for the group of people involved -- NANOGers. I'm also suggesting that, by extension, cross-pollination between NANOG and IETF meetings would be more efficient than simple forays onto "the other mailing list" (with "other" defined by one's perspective). Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:26:47AM -0600, Randy Bush wrote:
Funny that shim6 is being mentioned. The corresponding open mic session at 35 showed how gathering people for 20 minutes of complaining can effectively replace long, protracted email threads.
and what was the effect in the ietf? zippo.
Agreed. And to be honest, I missed this in my notes from 35 (and the two sets of minutes that we had). While I can't say authoratively, but I'm willing to wager that the {MPLS, IPv6, <X>} WG didn't consider this as a proposal. To that end, I'm happy to help write it up with whomever wants to for Dallas (or whenever works). More generally folks, let's solve this problem. Dave
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:56:51 +0000 (GMT), "Edward B. DREGER" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net> said: [snip]
Per, I'd like to take exception with your "exclude small companies" remark. This thread is about tighter engineering and ops involvement, so why shoot down those who have the two tightly coupled? Why eschew people who work both sides of the fence?
Sorry, the following sentence came out all wrong due to last minute cutnpaste: Most nanog'ers, with the exception of those representing small companies which don't separate engineering from operations, belong in the engineering category anyway. ...quite the opposite of what I ment to say. Most nanog'ers work in engineering. The problem is a lack of ops-people turning these xOG-groups ito xEG-groups instead. PS! I prefer tight integration of operations and engineering. I'd say it's good for engineering-staff to do ops-work from time to time (eat their own dog food;). Organisations that practise job-rotation generally have the better solutions. //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
PH> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:14:03 +0100 PH> From: Per Heldal PH> ...quite the opposite of what I ment to say. Most nanog'ers work in PH> engineering. The problem is a lack of ops-people turning these PH> xOG-groups ito xEG-groups instead. Ah. That makes much more sense. :-) PH> PS! I prefer tight integration of operations and engineering. I'd say PH> it's good for engineering-staff to do ops-work from time to time (eat PH> their own dog food;). Organisations that practise job-rotation generally PH> have the better solutions. Indeed, or at least so I like to think. Tight integration means fewer kludges that simply translate to more work for someone else. e.g., I'm currently working on a project that requires a new protocol. I'm also the one who must write the code, test, and [initially] keep it up and running once complete. No shifting the burden "10% easier here, 30% tougher there" going on around here. ;-) Perhaps what more organizations need is management who can properly bridge the different camps. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
participants (14)
-
Bruce Pinsky -
Christopher L. Morrow -
David Meyer -
Edward B. DREGER -
Jared Mauch -
Jeroen Massar -
Marshall Eubanks -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com -
Per Heldal -
Randy Bush -
Tony Hain -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Vicky Røde -
william(at)elan.net