Re:reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
--On March 15, 2005 09:46:49 PM +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] If the meetings are planned much more ahead, there will be more resources, and even probably will not need for volunteers, because will be possible to find a host. I'll also have to dispute that a lack of planning was a significant factor in the wireless difficulties. I've been involved in building every Minneapolis IETF (44, 50, 53, 58, and now 62) and there have been differing qualities in planning efforts. Except for the difficulty in getting base stations, planning efforts this time were more than adequate in spite of the short lead time available. And no matter how far ahead one tries to plan, the secretariat is just not always able to find sponsors, especially in the recent economic times. In Minneapolis, because of the good hotel infrastructure built up over the past few years and the extensive support with local individual volunteers and organizations (University of Minnesota, Onvoy), it's pretty easy now to put a network together here. The volunteer crew could easily put a reliable production-quality net together with gigabit access and backup links on 6 weeks notice if necessary. If we want a true guaranteed professional production network, then we will have to contract that to an experienced outfit who can bring in their own familiar equipment and give contractural accountability of service. So far, we have not been willing to fund that, so, you get the best that individual sponsors or groups of volunteers can do, and mostly, that's not bad. The wired net and upstream systems were indeed professional and production quality and did their job well. High-density, high-load radio stuff is just a pain and maybe will always be; I don't know. But it is interesting to note that at one time we were perfectly capable of conducting productive working group meetings and created great bunches of very good Internet protocols at them without large numbers of open laptops on our knees. But, the world changes and I guess that's not possible any more. -- Dennis Fazio Local Green Dot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re:reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
--On March 16, 2005 07:30:07 AM -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] that leaves equipment. how much would it cost us to have our own equipment? For those who would like to compute estimates, we used: 2 Juniper M10 routers with GigE and fiber ports 20 or so Cisco 3750 switch/routers with GigE and fiber ports 35 802.11 a/b/g access points with system management boxes 4 or 5 servers for DHCP, DNS, Radius, print queue, RFC cache, etc. Some of the switches were ganged for extra reliability. If that wasn't deemed necessary, about a dozen or so might be a minimum set. We could afford to be pretty liberal because of plentiful inventory and the generosity of the University. Add it all up (add a few $K for maintenance fees and miscellaneous) and divide by 3 years or thereabouts, when it will all have to be updated/replaced. That should give you a rough annual equipment budget. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: reflections .., wireless - equipment opinions
--On March 16, 2005 01:43:26 PM -0500 Steve Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the opinion of the volunteer teams on equipment? One options would be to try to get a preferred vendor to supply some equipment in return for being able to claim that their equipment is used by the IETF. I think most would say, something that is mainstream and I'm familiar with since I only have two days to get it working. Cisco and Juniper, on the router/switch side, have been consistently generous in this regard and there has been a general consistency and reliability on the backbone and wired network. On the wireless side, that is an industry and technology that is still evolving and changing every 6 months, it seems, with new access and security standards and new system management varieties still coming onto the market. I'm not a wireless expert, but it seems for something like an IETF meeting, you need industrial-strength managed systems, which means pricey. Standard independent APs without coordinated power management, tools for rogue AP detection, etc. would have a difficult time in such an assignment. I'm not sure there would be many wireless vendors who would be eager to step up to the plate to show off their otherwise-fine new product in a non-typical, high-stress environment where less-than-satisfactory performance is a high probability. Also, I wouldn't overestimate the sales benefit of such a sponsorship among their typical business customer base who are more likely than not to respond, IETF? What's that? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered corporate membership program like all other standards forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year for The difference is that the IETF is not an organization-membership-based entity but rather an individual-member-based organization. Your proposal would alter the basis of membership for the IETF and would encourage the very behaviour you claim is happening now and wish to prevent: the excessive influence of large corporations on Internet Standards. Once you turn IETF into a corporate-membership-based organization (whether explicitly by membership dues or implicitly by an official sliding scale paid by the corporation), the bias of attention and service shifts from the individual to the corporation. I decided to sit in on the Newcomers Orientation Sunday where one could learn: 1. that we don't use voting to determine standards to avoid the effect of anyone packing working group meetings with voters, 2. how all the different documents fit together as part of the process, how they are produced and reviewed primarily outside of meetings, and 3. the lengthy and tortuous path a proposal must take to become a standard, of which the working group meetings are only a small part. The system has been rigged to avoid excessive influence from any one organization. Maybe it's not always perfect, but you can be assured that trying to fix or avoid it by tinkering with registration fees will be futile no matter what structure you set. As others have pointed out, the registration fee is a rather small minority of total direct and indirect attendance costs, so protesting it on economic grounds doesn't seem to be a very strong issue. If your real issue is with perceived large corporate influence, that should be addressed by organizational and operational changes, not fee structures. -- Dennis Fazio HeatSeeker Technology Partners
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered corporate membership program like all other standards forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year for The difference is that the IETF is not an organization-membership-based entity but rather an individual-member-based organization. Your proposal would alter the basis of membership for the IETF and would encourage the very behaviour you claim is happening now and wish to prevent: the excessive influence of large corporations on Internet Standards. Once you turn IETF into a corporate-membership-based organization (whether explicitly by membership dues or implicitly by an official sliding scale paid by the corporation), the bias of attention and service shifts from the individual to the corporation. I decided to sit in on the Newcomers Orientation today where one could learn: 1. that we don't use voting to determine standards to avoid the effect of anyone packing working group meetings with voters, 2. how all the different documents fit together as part of the process, how they are produced and reviewed primarily outside of meetings, and 3. the lengthy and tortuous path a proposal must take to become a standard, of which the working group meetings are only a small part. The system has been rigged to avoid excessive influence from any one organization. Maybe it's not always perfect, but you can be assured that trying to fix or avoid it by tinkering with registration fees will be futile. The registration fee is a small minority of total attendance cost. If your real issue is with corporate influence, they should be addressed by organizational and operational changes, not fee structures. -- Dennis Fazio HeatSeeker Technology Partners
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered corporate membership program like all other standards forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year for The difference is that the IETF is not an organization-membership-based entity but rather an individual-member-based organization. Your proposal would alter the basis of membership for the IETF and would encourage the very behaviour you claim is happening now and wish to prevent: the excessive influence of large corporations on Internet Standards. Once you turn IETF into a corporate-membership-based organization (whether explicitly by membership dues or implicitly by an official sliding scale paid by the corporation), the bias of attention and service shifts from the individual to the corporation. I decided to sit in on the Newcomers Orientation today where one could learn: 1. that we don't use voting to determine standards to avoid the effect of anyone packing working group meetings with voters, 2. how all the different documents fit together as part of the process, how they are produced and reviewed primarily outside of meetings, and 3. the lengthy and tortuous path a proposal must take to become a standard, of which the working group meetings are only a small part. The system has been rigged to avoid excessive influence from any one organization. Maybe it's not always perfect, but you can be assured that trying to fix or avoid it by tinkering with registration fees will be futile. The registration fee is a small minority of total direct and indirect attendance cost. If your real issue is with corporate influence, they should be addressed by organizational and operational changes, not fee structures. -- Dennis Fazio HeatSeeker Technology Partners -- Dennis Fazio The Ephemeral Network
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 AM -0800 Kevin C. Almeroth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And before anyone starts whining about not having multicast access, the alternative is to send out unicast streams. And of course this creates an immense cost in terms of additional bandwidth needed out of the hotel. Well, you do have about 200Mbits/sec connected to the Hilton at the moment which should support a substantial number of mostly audio content feeds, but that's not likely to be available every meeting depending on sponsor. Besides, I believe you just need to send out a few streams to distribution reflectors elsewhere. -- Dennis Fazio HeatSeeker Technology Partners
