Hello, As promised few months ago publically I have volunteered to bring together content to have Peering Track back to agenda. Now called "Interconnection Track" I would like to ask those who will attend, have attended in person in the past or those who have organized similar events to chime in and help suggest topics to cover in this 90 min session. I must say, Interconnection Track has been a major part if NANOG for many years. We have watched those who we consider as legends to discuss very important topics there. Please try to make your suggestion in order of importance for you as well as from community. I can try to do my best with help of few folks to bring this track back but you can help make it even better so please take a moment and send me your suggestions. Thanks in advance! Mehmet
Hi Mehmet, *Great effort here. +1.* I'd suggest that you bring new faces to the game. New ideas are needed. Topic wise: - 'inside' settlement free peering - Content vs. Network Operators, and right sizing where the traffic comes from - Once and for all: Are IXP's as dead as some say? Hope that helps. Best, -M< On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Hello,
As promised few months ago publically I have volunteered to bring together content to have Peering Track back to agenda. Now called "Interconnection Track"
I would like to ask those who will attend, have attended in person in the past or those who have organized similar events to chime in and help suggest topics to cover in this 90 min session.
I must say, Interconnection Track has been a major part if NANOG for many years. We have watched those who we consider as legends to discuss very important topics there.
Please try to make your suggestion in order of importance for you as well as from community.
I can try to do my best with help of few folks to bring this track back but you can help make it even better so please take a moment and send me your suggestions.
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet
Thank you very much for sending privately and publicly an overwhelming number of suggestions. I do appreciate you taking time and writing things up in detail. I am doing my best with help of Greg H from PC to put these thoughts on paper. It looks like there is a great interest to make this track focusing on tooling and automation as well as introductions of new game changing ixps. I would like to invite all new IXPs to come and talk about what they offer (ie denver-ix) I also would like to invite any existing IXPs to announce price discounts to their services. This is the only update we will have time in this interconnection track. Unfortunately no graphs, other updates. Few questions, Seattle is beautiful in summer and I hope to have many of you in person in beautiful washington state, but for those who can't travel, should we record / live stream this session? (Historically we did keep peering track off the grid... i believe) Would it be interesting to focus on peering challenges globally or strictly focus on north america? Last but not least, If you have a tool you want to talk about in interconnection track that is directly involved with peering setup, etc. please do contact me offlist. Cheers! Looking forward to it. On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:36 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Hello,
As promised few months ago publically I have volunteered to bring together content to have Peering Track back to agenda. Now called "Interconnection Track"
I would like to ask those who will attend, have attended in person in the past or those who have organized similar events to chime in and help suggest topics to cover in this 90 min session.
I must say, Interconnection Track has been a major part if NANOG for many years. We have watched those who we consider as legends to discuss very important topics there.
Please try to make your suggestion in order of importance for you as well as from community.
I can try to do my best with help of few folks to bring this track back but you can help make it even better so please take a moment and send me your suggestions.
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet
Hi! Love the interconnection track. Great stuff. But I can't help but think limiting interconnection to the peering/IXP view seems to be looking at interconnection from the rear view mirror. I just think that changing the track name from peering/IXP to "Interconnection" has the optionality to be a bit more looking forward. Interconnection in the network world is becoming more sophisticated and important than just old school peering (hearing the gasps of horror from the Nanog peering cabal at that statement) ;) Cheers [b]
On 17 Apr 2017, at 9:52 pm, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Thank you very much for sending privately and publicly an overwhelming number of suggestions. I do appreciate you taking time and writing things up in detail. I am doing my best with help of Greg H from PC to put these thoughts on paper.
It looks like there is a great interest to make this track focusing on tooling and automation as well as introductions of new game changing ixps.
I would like to invite all new IXPs to come and talk about what they offer (ie denver-ix)
I also would like to invite any existing IXPs to announce price discounts to their services. This is the only update we will have time in this interconnection track. Unfortunately no graphs, other updates.
Few questions, Seattle is beautiful in summer and I hope to have many of you in person in beautiful washington state, but for those who can't travel, should we record / live stream this session? (Historically we did keep peering track off the grid... i believe)
Would it be interesting to focus on peering challenges globally or strictly focus on north america?
Last but not least, If you have a tool you want to talk about in interconnection track that is directly involved with peering setup, etc. please do contact me offlist.
Cheers! Looking forward to it.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:36 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Hello,
As promised few months ago publically I have volunteered to bring together content to have Peering Track back to agenda. Now called "Interconnection Track"
I would like to ask those who will attend, have attended in person in the past or those who have organized similar events to chime in and help suggest topics to cover in this 90 min session.
I must say, Interconnection Track has been a major part if NANOG for many years. We have watched those who we consider as legends to discuss very important topics there.
Please try to make your suggestion in order of importance for you as well as from community.
I can try to do my best with help of few folks to bring this track back but you can help make it even better so please take a moment and send me your suggestions.
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet
Scheduling question: I assume this is the slot on the agenda that say: "NANOG 70 Peering Coordination Forum" I'm not seeing it on the schedule. Has a lot been assigned? John Kemp On 4/17/17 6:03 AM, Bevan Slattery wrote:
Hi! Love the interconnection track. Great stuff. But I can't help but think limiting interconnection to the peering/IXP view seems to be looking at interconnection from the rear view mirror.
I just think that changing the track name from peering/IXP to "Interconnection" has the optionality to be a bit more looking forward. Interconnection in the network world is becoming more sophisticated and important than just old school peering (hearing the gasps of horror from the Nanog peering cabal at that statement) ;)
Cheers
[b]
On 17 Apr 2017, at 9:52 pm, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Thank you very much for sending privately and publicly an overwhelming number of suggestions. I do appreciate you taking time and writing things up in detail. I am doing my best with help of Greg H from PC to put these thoughts on paper.
It looks like there is a great interest to make this track focusing on tooling and automation as well as introductions of new game changing ixps.
I would like to invite all new IXPs to come and talk about what they offer (ie denver-ix)
I also would like to invite any existing IXPs to announce price discounts to their services. This is the only update we will have time in this interconnection track. Unfortunately no graphs, other updates.
Few questions, Seattle is beautiful in summer and I hope to have many of you in person in beautiful washington state, but for those who can't travel, should we record / live stream this session? (Historically we did keep peering track off the grid... i believe)
Would it be interesting to focus on peering challenges globally or strictly focus on north america?
Last but not least, If you have a tool you want to talk about in interconnection track that is directly involved with peering setup, etc. please do contact me offlist.
Cheers! Looking forward to it.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:36 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Hello,
As promised few months ago publically I have volunteered to bring together content to have Peering Track back to agenda. Now called "Interconnection Track"
I would like to ask those who will attend, have attended in person in the past or those who have organized similar events to chime in and help suggest topics to cover in this 90 min session.
I must say, Interconnection Track has been a major part if NANOG for many years. We have watched those who we consider as legends to discuss very important topics there.
Please try to make your suggestion in order of importance for you as well as from community.
I can try to do my best with help of few folks to bring this track back but you can help make it even better so please take a moment and send me your suggestions.
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet
John, The "Peering Coordination Forum" is a dedicated session for peering or interconnection discussions. It is a more formalized version of "peering personals" which were part of the old peering BoF and are also featured at GPF as well as other events. In other words if you are interested in soliciting new peers you provide some basic information such as ASN, Peering Policy, if caching is offered, and URL to peering policy or solicitation request. NANOG is providing tables to approximately 25 organizations, will project the information provided on slides and table locations, and you can conduct bi-lateral discussions. If you are interested in peering with those networks, you find them in that forum. There is also open meeting space with tables for the whole conference for bi-lateral discussions between networks and organizations, plus the NANOG board tasked the staff to evaluate tools for scheduling meetings for future meetings. The Peering Coordination Forum is open for registration: https://nanog.org/meetings/nanog70/pcf Mehmet has submitted a proposed agenda for the Interconnection track as, which the NANOG Program Committee has to evaluate through its peer review process. We received that submission today which is somewhat late in our review cycle, so there will probably be more information after the PC meets this Thursday, but it is not currently posted to the agenda. We will be posting approved submissions and their associated time-slots to the agenda this week. Please note that we are holding a hackathon at NANOG 70 Sunday and the "challenge" is o develop tools around Peering/Interconnection automation and there will be a short tutorial on the same theme. https://nanog.org/meetings/nanog70/hackathon Sean (on behalf of the NANOG PC) 2017-05-08 14:35 GMT-04:00 John Kemp <kemp@network-services.uoregon.edu>:
Scheduling question: I assume this is the slot on the agenda that say: "NANOG 70 Peering Coordination Forum"
I'm not seeing it on the schedule. Has a lot been assigned?
John Kemp
Hi! Love the interconnection track. Great stuff. But I can't help but
On 4/17/17 6:03 AM, Bevan Slattery wrote: think limiting interconnection to the peering/IXP view seems to be looking at interconnection from the rear view mirror.
I just think that changing the track name from peering/IXP to
"Interconnection" has the optionality to be a bit more looking forward. Interconnection in the network world is becoming more sophisticated and important than just old school peering (hearing the gasps of horror from the Nanog peering cabal at that statement) ;)
Cheers
[b]
On 17 Apr 2017, at 9:52 pm, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Thank you very much for sending privately and publicly an overwhelming number of suggestions. I do appreciate you taking time and writing
up in detail. I am doing my best with help of Greg H from PC to put
thoughts on paper.
It looks like there is a great interest to make this track focusing on tooling and automation as well as introductions of new game changing ixps.
I would like to invite all new IXPs to come and talk about what they offer (ie denver-ix)
I also would like to invite any existing IXPs to announce price discounts to their services. This is the only update we will have time in this interconnection track. Unfortunately no graphs, other updates.
Few questions, Seattle is beautiful in summer and I hope to have many of you in person in beautiful washington state, but for those who can't travel, should we record / live stream this session? (Historically we did keep peering track off the grid... i believe)
Would it be interesting to focus on peering challenges globally or strictly focus on north america?
Last but not least, If you have a tool you want to talk about in interconnection track that is directly involved with peering setup, etc. please do contact me offlist.
Cheers! Looking forward to it.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:36 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Hello,
As promised few months ago publically I have volunteered to bring together content to have Peering Track back to agenda. Now called "Interconnection Track"
I would like to ask those who will attend, have attended in person in
things these the
past or those who have organized similar events to chime in and help suggest topics to cover in this 90 min session.
I must say, Interconnection Track has been a major part if NANOG for many years. We have watched those who we consider as legends to discuss very important topics there.
Please try to make your suggestion in order of importance for you as well as from community.
I can try to do my best with help of few folks to bring this track back but you can help make it even better so please take a moment and send me your suggestions.
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet
participants (6)
-
Arnold Nipper -
Bevan Slattery -
John Kemp -
L Sean Kennedy -
Martin Hannigan -
Mehmet Akcin