RE: meeting format/content
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-nanog- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Figgins > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:01 PM > To: nanog-futures@merit.edu > Subject: Re: meeting format/content > > Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > Today's networking area is very very different from where I'm > sitting. > > Networking can be learnt reasonably successful "from a book" and > consultants > > are called in when things aren't quite working right or its time for > an upgrade. > > I have not met many consultants that I would trust with a login to our > routers. I barely trust contract employees, and only after they have > proven themselves are they given free reign with their login. And that > free reign only goes so far. > > > You won't learn carrier type clue from a book but somehow people > manage > > to get large-scale network management positions without needing to be > > a part of this tight knit community. I'm sure they've got different > > communities of their own. :) > > The only way to learn "carrier type" is from others, and then only if > you have the passion for learning it. From my experience, too many > people are in the business because they thought it was easy money, but > really don't care to learn about it. I've seen WAY too much of that. > I'd still contend that there are only maybe a few thousand peeople that > really have any sort of passion for networking AND practice it, rather > than preaching it from academia. > > > But if you don't talk to your neighbors at all and you're still > experiencing > > positive growth , why would you? > > How do you know you aren't missing out on something? CxOs are vers > concerned that their companies are not keeping pace with the other > ones. > > > Or more importantly - how do you pitch something like NANOG in a > light > > which makes the -business- people realise there is value again in > sharing? > > It's sort of hard. I am constantly asked to provide things like > "industry common practices." Yeah, you might get some of that from > trade rags, but most of that is heavily tainted by the equipment and > software vendors that advertise in said publications. The only way to > truly know what's going on in the industry is to talk at the peer > level. > This is the TRUE purpose of NANOG, in my opinion. The presentations > give a START for the discussions, but are not the totality of it. > > I've seen too many people attending NANOG meetings that seem to be > taking the presentations as if they were written on the tablets brought > back by Moses. I've also seem plenty of people in the presentation > room > that were not paying any attention at all. Neither group really gets > the same thing out of NANOG that I was getting. I suppose that's ok, > as > everyone brings and takes away their own thing. > > The real challenge it getting the companies to realize that the value > of > NANOG at $450 is 10 times greater than Cisco Networkers is, at $2000. > But, the same people will expect that you bring back what you learned, > and sometimes it's not about learing how to do something, but coming > back with a fragment of a thought that you are going to build on. > NANOG > isn't training, even though one company I worked for made me sign a > "training repayment agreement" before I could attend, in the event I > quit. > > I get a lot more out of NANOG from the 20 or 30 people that I might > talk > with in the halls than I really get out of the presentations. That's > just me, though. There have been at least one presentation that I've > been interested in at each NANOG I've been able to attend, though. > > -Sean > (Please respond via the list.) Perhaps we should give away some sort of Certificate instead of T-shirts. That way, attendees will be able to justify their participation to the powers-that-be. Seriously though, something like Networkers is marketed like crazy through the sales channels and that exposure means more people are likely to participate and the "value" is easy to quantify - I spend 500k a year on Cisco gear so 2k for a conference is a drop in the bucket and gets my people smarter on a core component of my network. If we can figure out a way to market NANOG that way we'd be in the money, so to speak. Mike
Re: meeting format/content
Adrian Chadd wrote: Today's networking area is very very different from where I'm sitting. Networking can be learnt reasonably successful "from a book" and consultants are called in when things aren't quite working right or its time for an upgrade. I have not met many consultants that I would trust with a login to our routers. I barely trust contract employees, and only after they have proven themselves are they given free reign with their login. And that free reign only goes so far. You won't learn carrier type clue from a book but somehow people manage to get large-scale network management positions without needing to be a part of this tight knit community. I'm sure they've got different communities of their own. :) The only way to learn "carrier type" is from others, and then only if you have the passion for learning it. From my experience, too many people are in the business because they thought it was easy money, but really don't care to learn about it. I've seen WAY too much of that. I'd still contend that there are only maybe a few thousand peeople that really have any sort of passion for networking AND practice it, rather than preaching it from academia. But if you don't talk to your neighbors at all and you're still experiencing positive growth , why would you? How do you know you aren't missing out on something? CxOs are vers concerned that their companies are not keeping pace with the other ones. Or more importantly - how do you pitch something like NANOG in a light which makes the -business- people realise there is value again in sharing? It's sort of hard. I am constantly asked to provide things like "industry common practices." Yeah, you might get some of that from trade rags, but most of that is heavily tainted by the equipment and software vendors that advertise in said publications. The only way to truly know what's going on in the industry is to talk at the peer level. This is the TRUE purpose of NANOG, in my opinion. The presentations give a START for the discussions, but are not the totality of it. I've seen too many people attending NANOG meetings that seem to be taking the presentations as if they were written on the tablets brought back by Moses. I've also seem plenty of people in the presentation room that were not paying any attention at all. Neither group really gets the same thing out of NANOG that I was getting. I suppose that's ok, as everyone brings and takes away their own thing. The real challenge it getting the companies to realize that the value of NANOG at $450 is 10 times greater than Cisco Networkers is, at $2000. But, the same people will expect that you bring back what you learned, and sometimes it's not about learing how to do something, but coming back with a fragment of a thought that you are going to build on. NANOG isn't training, even though one company I worked for made me sign a "training repayment agreement" before I could attend, in the event I quit. I get a lot more out of NANOG from the 20 or 30 people that I might talk with in the halls than I really get out of the presentations. That's just me, though. There have been at least one presentation that I've been interested in at each NANOG I've been able to attend, though. -Sean (Please respond via the list.)
Re: meeting format/content
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007, Sean Figgins wrote: > > [adrian chadd] > >These topics however seem "altrustic" ; why would someone talk about what > >gives them an edge over their competitors? > > If nobody ever talked about the above topics, then we would not have an > Internet today. Despite what CxOs may think, the very essence of the > Internet is the free sharing of technology and ideas. Intellectual > Property means nothing to the Internet, which just sees it as a series > of 1s and 0s. Because ten years ago things were still difficult and my experience with the network community was it was tight-knit and very cliquey. You weren't going to get far with a lack of clue and a lack of interest. Today's networking area is very very different from where I'm sitting. Networking can be learnt reasonably successful "from a book" and consultants are called in when things aren't quite working right or its time for an upgrade. You won't learn carrier type clue from a book but somehow people manage to get large-scale network management positions without needing to be a part of this tight knit community. I'm sure they've got different communities of their own. :) I've tried to get some of the netadmins/ops guys/girls out here in Western Australia to present on the stuff they're up to. They're all for telling us how they rolled out a VoIP network with "SS7" interconnects and call routing. Their management doesn't like the idea of sharing said clue with other potential competitors, so they stay tight lipped. > Not all companies will appeal to all customers. We need multiple > companies provide the service to the customers, as the customers all > want to connect to each other. It is in our best interest to ensure > that the end-to-end experience is as positive as possible, as even if > the problem is not on our network, our call center is still going to get > the call. How can we ensure that the customer's experience is as good > as possible? Well, we have to help the rest of the network providers > improve their network, which in turn causes us to improve our own. Pish. I don't believe that at all. You'll either be smart and roll out a large network to enough peering points with enough infrastructure under your control so you can choose cold or hot potato routing depending on the "clue" and "quality" of the target networks' network. Cluey guys will build networks assuming others can't build theirs and make sure their stuff "works better" regardless of how its done. > Competition is all about trying to make your customers happy. If you > are selling the best car in the world, it does the customer little good > if they can't even leave their driveway, as the roads are not any good. Argh. Car analogies. The discussion ends here. > Edge is ultimately all about the service you are willing to give the > customer to make them feel good about paying you. There really is no > other edge that matter. I used to work for a company that charged > $29.95 a month for 33.6 dial up service, and we took business away from > the $7.95 provider. Why? We made our customers feel more important. > We were open about the problems we had, and how we planned to fix them. > And, we always answered the phone when they called. Even when they > left and signed up for a year prepaid with the other guy, we knew they'd > be back in 2 months. > > > Don't try to make your network look better by talking down your > neighbors. It only makes you look bad in the long run. But if you don't talk to your neighbors at all and you're still experiencing positive growth , why would you? Or more importantly - how do you pitch something like NANOG in a light which makes the -business- people realise there is value again in sharing? Adrian
Re: meeting format/content
Adrian Chadd wrote: It seems to me that NANOG should be concerned with the following: 1) How to design/install/operate a multi-service network 2) How to achieve efficient network operation through the use of network protocols 3) What is/How to peer, and why settlement free peering is a good thing 4) How to protect your network assets from the bad guys These topics however seem "altrustic" ; why would someone talk about what gives them an edge over their competitors? If nobody ever talked about the above topics, then we would not have an Internet today. Despite what CxOs may think, the very essence of the Internet is the free sharing of technology and ideas. Intellectual Property means nothing to the Internet, which just sees it as a series of 1s and 0s. Not all companies will appeal to all customers. We need multiple companies provide the service to the customers, as the customers all want to connect to each other. It is in our best interest to ensure that the end-to-end experience is as positive as possible, as even if the problem is not on our network, our call center is still going to get the call. How can we ensure that the customer's experience is as good as possible? Well, we have to help the rest of the network providers improve their network, which in turn causes us to improve our own. Competition is all about trying to make your customers happy. If you are selling the best car in the world, it does the customer little good if they can't even leave their driveway, as the roads are not any good. Edge is ultimately all about the service you are willing to give the customer to make them feel good about paying you. There really is no other edge that matter. I used to work for a company that charged $29.95 a month for 33.6 dial up service, and we took business away from the $7.95 provider. Why? We made our customers feel more important. We were open about the problems we had, and how we planned to fix them. And, we always answered the phone when they called. Even when they left and signed up for a year prepaid with the other guy, we knew they'd be back in 2 months. Don't try to make your network look better by talking down your neighbors. It only makes you look bad in the long run. -Sean (Please respond through the list)
Re: meeting format/content
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007, Sean Figgins wrote: > It seems to me that NANOG should be concerned with the following: > > 1) How to design/install/operate a multi-service network > 2) How to achieve efficient network operation through the use of network > protocols > 3) What is/How to peer, and why settlement free peering is a good thing > 4) How to protect your network assets from the bad guys These topics however seem "altrustic" ; why would someone talk about what gives them an edge over their competitors? Adrian
Re: meeting format/content
On 10 Oct 2007, at 17:56, Sean Figgins wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: We talk a lot about what is on-topic. I get why there is a question about botnets - they affect the network, but don't really relate to routing, so there are arguments on both sides. I'm a bit more confused about spam, since the biggest spam run against the biggest mail servers in the world won't even be noticed by the underlying network. But whatever, we are (supposed to be :) adults, we can discuss it. While spam bots may not be relevant to network operations, that's only one type of botnet. Many of them are used to in attacks, usually of the ddos variety. This certainly has the potential to affect the network and has, in fact, affected the network. These have been discussed before at the community meetings, as well as some of the measures to protect against it. Some of these attacks are great enough to criple even multiple oc48s. I think that this SHOULD be discussed more, as it is an increasing role of network operators. Spam, on the other hand, always seemed to be a scarlet topic here. If someone mentions spam or mail servers, there are those here that start breathing fire and claiming that their email should not be subject to spam filters. I don't know that it's really a relevant topic, as not all network operators provide email services to their customers, and the number that actually do seem to be getting smaller and smaller. It seems to me that NANOG should be concerned with the following: 1) How to design/install/operate a multi-service network 2) How to achieve efficient network operation through the use of network protocols 3) What is/How to peer, and why settlement free peering is a good thing 4) How to protect your network assets from the bad guys i wrote in an earlier post that i thought the industry had evolved and matured faster than NANOG i think the above topics constitute the fundamentals of networking but they are not the topics of current interest or relevance. if you dont know how your network protocols work go google it or hire a consultant - theres plenty of knowledge. Other topics that MIGHT be discussed: 1) IPv6, how the Mayan Calendar predicts IP exhaustion by December 21, 2012. the above ideas aren't so exciting but i guess you were not entirely serious about that list. if we want to keep relevant we should look at what is challenging our experienced operators in 2007 and focusing on those issue off top of my head that to me seems to include a) changes to the age old IPv4/BGP system: namely 32 bit ASNs and IPv6 b) scaling of existing systems - IPv4 exhaustion, ASN exhaustion, routing table growth c) what hardware is being used : there is a huge amount of choice compared to 10 yrs ago, ditto for software choices d) technology - IP is boring, everyone is using MPLS, VPLS, weird Q- tagging ... why? which are good? whats the pitfalls? e) security - the bad guys are at least as skilled as the good guys, and theres a multimillion dollar industry operating in cybercrime and probably some other things, but i just wanted to provoke thoughts here.. for the conference to be valuable to the 'core people' it must provide answers to their questions and interest them to share those questions It also seems to me that increasing the meetings from 2 days (plus Sunday night) to 3 days may be costing NANOG more for facilities. Are all topics interesting to everyone, or is it possible to have a couple different tracks? As I'm presently in a security role, I'd actually get more use out of security tracks that I will out of IPv6 and routing, and thus have not been able to justify NANOG to my present employer. i dont pretend to know enough about organizing conferences to speak about this authoritatively but the budget just feels broken to me. with attendees filling an average hotel for several days, plus sponsors paying for all the food, drinks, network and support i just don't understand how the hotels are charging so much for what amounts to room hire of their otherwise empty ballrooms Steve
Re: meeting format/content
On 10 Oct 2007, at 17:56, Sean Figgins wrote: Spam, on the other hand, always seemed to be a scarlet topic here. If someone mentions spam or mail servers, there are those here that start breathing fire and claiming that their email should not be subject to spam filters. I don't know that it's really a relevant topic, as not all network operators provide email services to their customers, and the number that actually do seem to be getting smaller and smaller. [...] 2) Voice over IP. 3) Video over IP. If we let email be called 'Literature over IP', then if voice and video are on topic, email is. -a
Re: meeting format/content
Joe Abley wrote: Regardless of the topicality, subject matter which is certain to cause rhetorical explosions seems worthwhile avoiding. And that certainly seems like a reasonable suggestion, considering some topics seem to be almost religious in nature. -Sean (Please respond through the list)
Re: meeting format/content
On 10-Oct-2007, at 1256, Sean Figgins wrote: Spam, on the other hand, always seemed to be a scarlet topic here. If someone mentions spam or mail servers, there are those here that start breathing fire and claiming that their email should not be subject to spam filters. I don't know that it's really a relevant topic, as not all network operators provide email services to their customers, and the number that actually do seem to be getting smaller and smaller. I think it's also reasonable to consider what kind of thread we can expect. It has been my experience in the past that the minute someone starts talking enthusiastically about spam or spam-fighting, the list immediately fills with rhetoric and incrimination and the signal:noise drops rapidly to something near zero. Regardless of the topicality, subject matter which is certain to cause rhetorical explosions seems worthwhile avoiding. Joe (speaking as generic nanog subscriber)
Re: meeting format/content
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: We talk a lot about what is on-topic. I get why there is a question about botnets - they affect the network, but don't really relate to routing, so there are arguments on both sides. I'm a bit more confused about spam, since the biggest spam run against the biggest mail servers in the world won't even be noticed by the underlying network. But whatever, we are (supposed to be :) adults, we can discuss it. While spam bots may not be relevant to network operations, that's only one type of botnet. Many of them are used to in attacks, usually of the ddos variety. This certainly has the potential to affect the network and has, in fact, affected the network. These have been discussed before at the community meetings, as well as some of the measures to protect against it. Some of these attacks are great enough to criple even multiple oc48s. I think that this SHOULD be discussed more, as it is an increasing role of network operators. Spam, on the other hand, always seemed to be a scarlet topic here. If someone mentions spam or mail servers, there are those here that start breathing fire and claiming that their email should not be subject to spam filters. I don't know that it's really a relevant topic, as not all network operators provide email services to their customers, and the number that actually do seem to be getting smaller and smaller. It seems to me that NANOG should be concerned with the following: 1) How to design/install/operate a multi-service network 2) How to achieve efficient network operation through the use of network protocols 3) What is/How to peer, and why settlement free peering is a good thing 4) How to protect your network assets from the bad guys Other topics that MIGHT be discussed: 1) IPv6, how the Mayan Calendar predicts IP exhaustion by December 21, 2012. 2) Voice over IP. 3) Video over IP. 4) Multicast (does anyone really use this?) 5) What versions of vendor X's code really sucks 6) Why hard drives in routers are both the best and worse thing ever conceived. 7) etc. It also seems to me that increasing the meetings from 2 days (plus Sunday night) to 3 days may be costing NANOG more for facilities. Are all topics interesting to everyone, or is it possible to have a couple different tracks? As I'm presently in a security role, I'd actually get more use out of security tracks that I will out of IPv6 and routing, and thus have not been able to justify NANOG to my present employer. Just some thoughts. -Sean (Please respond through the list)
Re: meeting format/content (was: 2 day/budget)
On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:10 AM, Mike Hughes wrote: On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Randy Bush wrote: 5/ Peering, perhaps... we already have a strong sub-culture and sub-meetings on peering. how would you suggest we adapt/focus it to fit in your track idea? perhaps re-frame as inter-provider relations, e.g. some of the technology, not just the social, political, and financial aspects? One issue that seems to be getting hideous again is NOC awareness of Peering and how to escalate it. So often we get given numbers (or recieve complaints about) which direct peers into customer NOCs with hideous call trees, "please enter your account number" auto-attendants, and all manner of evil. I think this is a good example of cross-over between network operations and peering management? Since when is peering management _not_ part of network operations? Last time I checked, if your peering sucked, your network didn't operate well. We talk a lot about what is on-topic. I get why there is a question about botnets - they affect the network, but don't really relate to routing, so there are arguments on both sides. I'm a bit more confused about spam, since the biggest spam run against the biggest mail servers in the world won't even be noticed by the underlying network. But whatever, we are (supposed to be :) adults, we can discuss it. Peering, OTOH, _IS_ network operations. The -point- of the Internet is to interconnect, which means peering and transit. Anyone who disagrees needs to find me in Albuquerque and explain this, because I think you are seriously confused. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: meeting format/content (was: 2 day/budget)
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Randy Bush wrote: 5/ Peering, perhaps... we already have a strong sub-culture and sub-meetings on peering. how would you suggest we adapt/focus it to fit in your track idea? perhaps re-frame as inter-provider relations, e.g. some of the technology, not just the social, political, and financial aspects? One issue that seems to be getting hideous again is NOC awareness of Peering and how to escalate it. So often we get given numbers (or recieve complaints about) which direct peers into customer NOCs with hideous call trees, "please enter your account number" auto-attendants, and all manner of evil. I think this is a good example of cross-over between network operations and peering management? Mike
Re: meeting format/content (was: 2 day/budget)
> What I like about the RIPE and APRICOT (and perhaps even ARIN) > conferences apart is that they encourage and invite participation > from the community through the use of tracks and working groups, > while still maintaining a significant number of interesting > presentations for the community as a whole. ok, a constructive suggestion! of course, ripe, arin, apnic, ... have some natural segmentation due to their community's rir orientation. and as i am currently reviewing apricot proposals, i am not overly excited; getting good non-marketing content there seems harder than nanog. but i have not served on the nanog pc for some years, so do not really have a view into specific content submitted there. blah blah. but let's take your suggestion seriously; after all, it's the only one we have received :) > 1/ IPv6. like it or not, in five years, most of us will be running ipv6. and a bunch of us are running it now. i think we could easily fill a day with actual *operator* experience with various aspects of deploying ipv6, problems, solutions, gaps, and work arounds. and no fluff! i am willing to work on this with some folk. > 2/ VOIP. good subject, though i am at the low end of this food chain and thus have a good excuse not to volunteer. > 3/ Video-on-Demand. > 4/ Network Convergence ibid > 5/ Peering, perhaps... we already have a strong sub-culture and sub-meetings on peering. how would you suggest we adapt/focus it to fit in your track idea? perhaps re-frame as inter-provider relations, e.g. some of the technology, not just the social, political, and financial aspects? randy
