Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Joe Provo]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:47:04PM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> Heya,
> 
> There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments
> on the NANOG conference network.  While there is a serious benefit
> to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG
> attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees
> having a functional network during the conference.  
> 
> We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. The SC has 
> drafted a "Network Experiments" policy based on prior experience 
> and what we think our conference attendees need to have available 
> while on-site.  Please see the attachment below and share your
> opinions and suggestions.
 
Here's an update based upon the comments here - thanks everyone!  
There appeared no consensus on the data handling, therefore this
includes the previous, conservative approach.  If this isn't egregious 
then we'll go forward with it:



Criteria for Network Tests During a NANOG Meeting


Members of the community who wish to test, trial or otherwise run
an experiment on the live network at a NANOG meeting may submit
their plan to the NANOG Steering Committee (SC) for consideration.
Running on the live meeting network will expose your experiment to
hundreds of highly skilled IP network specialists.  This defines a 
minimal baseline set of expectation for changes to the "production"
conference network; nothing in this policy precludes parallel 
networks run expressly for experiments.

Since this has the possibility of being highly disruptive to the
meeting attendees, there are basic requirements which apply to all
applicants.  The SC will evaluate submissions, consulting with the 
Program Committee, Merit staff, and the hosting entity as needed,
through the meeting's usual engineering team.  Specific attention
to possible integration with the meeting's program will be discussed
with the Program Committee.

In short, to be approved there must be adequate return on the effort 
to the community as a whole and the meeting attendees in particular.
The experiment MUST:
- Be voluntary rather than compulsory, therefore an incentive
  for attendees' participation is encouraged.
- Fill a need or directly address a question of interest to
  the NANOG community, ideally of specific relevance to the
  meeting attendees.
- Provide a benefit to the attendees through their participation.
- Have clear measurement of the success or at least effectiveness
  of the experiment, which will be able to be at least summarized
  and related in a lightning talk submission, if not a full 
  presentation.
- Have finite and well-defined requirements for support and
  assistance of Merit and the NANOG local meeting host, including 
  but not limited to funding, space, power, addressing/number 
  resources, equipment, security and staff time.
- Treat any observed or collected data (be it raw usage, vague
  aggregate, anonymized, etc.,) as ephemeral and of use only 
  for public, noncommercial presentations.

An experimenter must send the following to the SC 90 days (three
months) prior to a meeting to be considered for that meeting:
- a description of the purpose/goals of the experiment;
- detailed network diagram[s] and bandwidth requirement;
- any relevant configuration examples; and
- a statement regarding resources the proposer is willing to
  committing supplying for the experiment (equipment, funding,
  staff, etc).

-30-

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[bmanning]

 i see two sides...  

) sactioned actions - likely controlled, may be publically
  announced -etc. - but known by the net admins and administrative
  staff - maybe even the SC etc.
) grass-roots actions - likely controlled, may be publically
  announced - etc. - but -NOT- known by the net admins, staff
  or even the PHBs

 the second catagory might be extended to everyone using handhelds w/ new
 OS's, radios, stack behaviours (mobile, ad-hoc networks anyone) that are 
 completely unexpected by the planned network/crew.  

as usual, YMMV

--bill


On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 01:34:23PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> So, in the distant past we (there are several we's in this case)
> experimentally deployed IDSes and or inline sniffers with the permission
> of merit staff under the requirement that all the data collected be
> destroyed when the meeting was over. Some of these experiments resulted
> in the announcement of results, some were simply to get an understanding
> of dense wireless network deployments, deal with rogue systems, or
> evaluate the technology.
> 
> Like I said, I could see alternatives and circumstances were other
> approaches would be appropriate, But I would probably not avail myself
> of an experiment where the result to be for example a published set of
> flow data or catch-all packet traces from the meeting.
> 
> joel
> 
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > Its pretty easy to assign a Creative Commons license to the work and
> > share it, for example. What could the possible objections be?
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Marty
> > 
> > On 4/9/09, Joel Jaeggli  wrote:
> >>
> >> Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming!  We'll pop out
> >>> an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is
> >>> reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points
> >>> raised so far (both on-list and off):
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - Costs were intended to be covered under the "Have finite and
> >>>  well-defined requirements for support [...]" (WRT static/sunk
> >>>  costs of labour, etc) and "a statement regarding resources the
> >>>  proposer is committing to supply" (WRT money or specific equipment
> >>>  needed for the experiment).  The draft will be updated to make
> >>>  both more explict.
> >>> -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It would be interesting to suggest that a copy of all raw data collected
> >>> to be provided back to the community so that they too could share in the
> >>> research or create derivatives from it (with proper attribution for all
> >>> work product of course).
> >> As a goal that's exactly the opposite of how we've done it in the past.
> >> not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea, just saying.
> >>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
> >>> 
> >>> p: +16178216079
> >>> Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Nanog-futures mailing list
> >>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> >>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
> > 
> > 
> 
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Joel Jaeggli  wrote:

> So, in the distant past we (there are several we's in this case)
> experimentally deployed IDSes and or inline sniffers with the permission
> of merit staff under the requirement that all the data collected be
> destroyed when the meeting was over. Some of these experiments resulted
> in the announcement of results, some were simply to get an understanding
> of dense wireless network deployments, deal with rogue systems, or
> evaluate the technology.
>
> Like I said, I could see alternatives and circumstances were other
> approaches would be appropriate, But I would probably not avail myself
> of an experiment where the result to be for example a published set of
> flow data or catch-all packet traces from the meeting.
>
>
That's the beauty of full disclosure? :-) Seems like history warrants this
as well. I have been lucky enough to not have had my password captured (as
far as I am aware) during these experiments and then have it broadcast
during the meeting. :-)

I'm thinking opt-in with data required to be under CC licensing and shared
with attribution seems responsible and valuable to the community.


Thanks for the follow-up!


Best,

Martin

-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Joel Jaeggli]

So, in the distant past we (there are several we's in this case)
experimentally deployed IDSes and or inline sniffers with the permission
of merit staff under the requirement that all the data collected be
destroyed when the meeting was over. Some of these experiments resulted
in the announcement of results, some were simply to get an understanding
of dense wireless network deployments, deal with rogue systems, or
evaluate the technology.

Like I said, I could see alternatives and circumstances were other
approaches would be appropriate, But I would probably not avail myself
of an experiment where the result to be for example a published set of
flow data or catch-all packet traces from the meeting.

joel

Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Its pretty easy to assign a Creative Commons license to the work and
> share it, for example. What could the possible objections be?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Marty
> 
> On 4/9/09, Joel Jaeggli  wrote:
>>
>> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming!  We'll pop out
>>> an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is
>>> reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points
>>> raised so far (both on-list and off):
>>>
>>>
>>> - Costs were intended to be covered under the "Have finite and
>>>  well-defined requirements for support [...]" (WRT static/sunk
>>>  costs of labour, etc) and "a statement regarding resources the
>>>  proposer is committing to supply" (WRT money or specific equipment
>>>  needed for the experiment).  The draft will be updated to make
>>>  both more explict.
>>> -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to suggest that a copy of all raw data collected
>>> to be provided back to the community so that they too could share in the
>>> research or create derivatives from it (with proper attribution for all
>>> work product of course).
>> As a goal that's exactly the opposite of how we've done it in the past.
>> not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea, just saying.
>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
>>> 
>>> p: +16178216079
>>> Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Nanog-futures mailing list
>>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
>>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
> 
> 

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Martin Hannigan]

Its pretty easy to assign a Creative Commons license to the work and
share it, for example. What could the possible objections be?

Best,

Marty

On 4/9/09, Joel Jaeggli  wrote:
>
>
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming!  We'll pop out
>> an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is
>> reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points
>> raised so far (both on-list and off):
>>
>>
>> - Costs were intended to be covered under the "Have finite and
>>  well-defined requirements for support [...]" (WRT static/sunk
>>  costs of labour, etc) and "a statement regarding resources the
>>  proposer is committing to supply" (WRT money or specific equipment
>>  needed for the experiment).  The draft will be updated to make
>>  both more explict.
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be interesting to suggest that a copy of all raw data collected
>> to be provided back to the community so that they too could share in the
>> research or create derivatives from it (with proper attribution for all
>> work product of course).
>
> As a goal that's exactly the opposite of how we've done it in the past.
> not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea, just saying.
>
>> Best,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
>> 
>> p: +16178216079
>> Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Nanog-futures mailing list
>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Joel Jaeggli]

Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming!  We'll pop out
> an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is
> reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points
> raised so far (both on-list and off):
> 
> 
> - Costs were intended to be covered under the "Have finite and
>  well-defined requirements for support [...]" (WRT static/sunk
>  costs of labour, etc) and "a statement regarding resources the
>  proposer is committing to supply" (WRT money or specific equipment
>  needed for the experiment).  The draft will be updated to make
>  both more explict.
> - 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to suggest that a copy of all raw data collected
> to be provided back to the community so that they too could share in the
> research or create derivatives from it (with proper attribution for all
> work product of course).

As a goal that's exactly the opposite of how we've done it in the past.
not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea, just saying.

> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> --
> Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
> 
> p: +16178216079
> Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo  wrote:

>
>
> Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming!  We'll pop out
> an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is
> reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points
> raised so far (both on-list and off):
>
>
> - Costs were intended to be covered under the "Have finite and
>  well-defined requirements for support [...]" (WRT static/sunk
>  costs of labour, etc) and "a statement regarding resources the
>  proposer is committing to supply" (WRT money or specific equipment
>  needed for the experiment).  The draft will be updated to make
>  both more explict.
> -



It would be interesting to suggest that a copy of all raw data collected to
be provided back to the community so that they too could share in the
research or create derivatives from it (with proper attribution for all work
product of course).

Best,

Martin


--
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Joe Provo]

Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming!  We'll pop out 
an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is 
reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points 
raised so far (both on-list and off):

- In addition to the v6 hour, there have been more recently
  proposed experiments that didn't come to fruition.  Part of 
  the intent here is to provide a fair standard to apply to such 
  proposals, and set a level of expectation for preparadeness on 
  the part of the proposer.  
- Nothing in this suggested policy precludes additional, parallel
  networks.  The focus is what will and will not be considered
  for the conference network.  WRT opt-in, note the "voluntary
  not compulsary" bullet.
- Costs were intended to be covered under the "Have finite and 
  well-defined requirements for support [...]" (WRT static/sunk 
  costs of labour, etc) and "a statement regarding resources the 
  proposer is committing to supply" (WRT money or specific equipment 
  needed for the experiment).  The draft will be updated to make 
  both more explict.
- This started out as more general principles and consciously 
  avoided attemtps to dictate the future (encoding specific VLANs
  or SSIDs, address space, etc), but it was observed that without 
  setting minimum expectations the per-meeting conference engineering 
  teams would be spending time spinning their wheels on something 
  which may not come together.
- Integration with the program was intended to be covered by 
  "SC will evaluate submission, conferring as needed with the
  Program Committee[...]" and "Have clear measurement [...]
  related in a lightning talk submission, if not full presentation."
  The draft will be updated to make this intent more clear.

Cheers!

Joe

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Adrian Chadd]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2009, Michael K. Smith wrote:

> I would prefer a segmented network that participants can choose to join as
> part of the experiment and leave the business-use network in place.  A
> different VLAN/SSID/Subnet would suffice.  Common infrastructure could still
> be overloaded but I don't expect it would work to have completely separate
> physical networks.

The problem is getting some semblence of "representative sample".

The type of people who participate at NANOG these days will be
a non-representative sample of the "general internet user", sure, 
but having experiments on a test VLAN will make that sample even
more skewed and thus make the experimental results slightly(!)
less valid than they should be.




Adrian


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Michael K. Smith]

Hello:


On 4/7/09 6:47 PM, "Joe Provo"  wrote:

> Heya,
> 
> There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments
> on the NANOG conference network.  While there is a serious benefit
> to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG
> attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees
> having a functional network during the conference.
> 
> We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. The SC has
> drafted a "Network Experiments" policy based on prior experience
> and what we think our conference attendees need to have available
> while on-site.  Please see the attachment below and share your
> opinions and suggestions.
> 
> Cheers!
> 

I would prefer a segmented network that participants can choose to join as
part of the experiment and leave the business-use network in place.  A
different VLAN/SSID/Subnet would suffice.  Common infrastructure could still
be overloaded but I don't expect it would work to have completely separate
physical networks.

Regards,

Mike


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Joel Jaeggli]

I think I'd support them more if the document were a statement of
principles rather than a set of rules. I don't think it's necessary to
impose so formal a structure on the process unless the SC believes that
good judgment is a less effective cover than process.

Secondly the document assumes that planning and approval of an
experiment as part of the program is not in fact the responsibility of
the program committee but rather of the SC. While the SC has that
prerogative, the document should (I believe) reflect that the PC is
responsible for the integration of of the experiment into the program
and should unless something is badly wrong be involved in the approval
process...

The sense that i got from the previous exercise was that the community
one the whole was not interested in experiments which were disruptivem
and the document adequately captures that.

Joe Provo wrote:
> Heya,
> 
> There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments
> on the NANOG conference network.  While there is a serious benefit
> to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG
> attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees
> having a functional network during the conference.  
> 
> We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. The SC has 
> drafted a "Network Experiments" policy based on prior experience 
> and what we think our conference attendees need to have available 
> while on-site.  Please see the attachment below and share your
> opinions and suggestions.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Martin Hannigan]

I agree with it as well. I think that a caveat related to "costs" should be
added though. Costs of experiments should be borne by the experimenters. Our
attendance fees are already high and should probably not support efforts
that all attendees are not going to participate in. If the costs are sunk,
like labor or volunteers, and Merit will allow it at no additional cost to
the budget that seems fine. If any other costs are to be borne in assuring
that we all have our work access available and the experiment split, those
costs should be covered by them, IMHO.

Best,

Martin


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Brzozowski, John <
john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> I for one am happy to see this proposal.  At a glance the policy appears to
> be reasonable.  Conducting experiments where so many qualified and
> interested participants are present is mutually beneficial to those
> participating as well as those organizing the activities.
>
> John
> ---
> John Jason Brzozowski
> Comcast Corporation
> e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
> m) 609-377-6594
> ---
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Provo [mailto:nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net]
> Sent: Tue 4/7/2009 9:47 PM
> To: nanog-futures
> Subject: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy
>
> Heya,
>
> There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments
> on the NANOG conference network.  While there is a serious benefit
> to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG
> attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees
> having a functional network during the conference.
>
> We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. The SC has
> drafted a "Network Experiments" policy based on prior experience
> and what we think our conference attendees need to have available
> while on-site.  Please see the attachment below and share your
> opinions and suggestions.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> --
> RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
>
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>



-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Brzozowski, John]

Joe,

I for one am happy to see this proposal.  At a glance the policy appears to be 
reasonable.  Conducting experiments where so many qualified and interested 
participants are present is mutually beneficial to those participating as well 
as those organizing the activities.

John
--- 
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Corporation
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
m) 609-377-6594
---



-Original Message-
From: Joe Provo [mailto:nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net]
Sent: Tue 4/7/2009 9:47 PM
To: nanog-futures
Subject: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy
 
Heya,

There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments
on the NANOG conference network.  While there is a serious benefit
to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG
attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees
having a functional network during the conference.  

We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. The SC has 
drafted a "Network Experiments" policy based on prior experience 
and what we think our conference attendees need to have available 
while on-site.  Please see the attachment below and share your
opinions and suggestions.

Cheers!


-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

[Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Joe Provo]

Heya,

There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments
on the NANOG conference network.  While there is a serious benefit
to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG
attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees
having a functional network during the conference.  

We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. The SC has 
drafted a "Network Experiments" policy based on prior experience 
and what we think our conference attendees need to have available 
while on-site.  Please see the attachment below and share your
opinions and suggestions.

Cheers!


-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Criteria for Network Tests During a NANOG Meeting


Members of the community who wish to test, trial or otherwise run
an experiment on the live network at a NANOG meeting may submit
their plan to the NANOG Steering Committee (SC) for consideration.
Running on the live meeting network will expose your experiment to
hundreds of highly skilled IP network specialists.

Since this has the possibility of being highly disruptive to the
meeting attendees, there are basic requirements which apply to all
applicants.  The SC will evaluate submissions, conferring as needed
with the Program Committee, Merit staff, and the hosting entity as
needed through each meeting???s engineering team.

In short, to be approved there must be adequate return on the effort 
to the community as a whole and the meeting attendees in particular.
The experiment MUST:
- Be voluntary rather than compulsory, therefore an incentive
  for attendees' participation is encouraged.
- Fill a need or directly address a question of interest to
  the NANOG community, ideally of specific relevance to the
  meeting attendees.
- Provide a benefit to the attendees through their participation.
- Have clear measurement of the success or at least effectiveness
  of the experiment, which will be able to be at least summarized
  and related in a lightning talk submission, if not a full 
  presentation.
- Have finite and well-defined requirements for support and
  assistance of Merit and the NANOG local meeting host, including 
  but not limited to space, power, addressing/number resources, 
  equipment, security and staff time.
- Treat any observed or collected data (be it raw usage, vague
  aggregate, anonymized, etc.,) as ephemeral and of use only 
  for public, noncommercial presentations.

An experimenter must send the following to the SC 90 days (three
months) prior to a meeting to be considered for that meeting:
- a description of the purpose/goals of the experiment;
- detailed network diagram[s] and bandwidth requirement;
- any relevant configuration examples; and
- a statement regarding resources the proposer is committing to supply.

-30-
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures