At 12:55 PM 10/30/2007, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote:
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be
> nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or
> the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by- four
> me if I've missed it.
MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home
Smaller/regional ISPs need not apply. Minimum cost of entry is
$3,000/year, no voting rights ($12.5K if you actually care about
voting). So if you're not Verizon or Comcast or similarly sized, it
appears you're not really welcome.
Though it might make sense to discuss some other things NANOG could
do in addition to worrying about routing table size and churn in
the core, those are all discussions for the Futures list.
I would support the creation of a mail-operators list (& agenda time
for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean
that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be
offtopic on nanog-l.
I guess my preference would be for NANOG as an organization to
recognize that a single mailing list (not counting the futures list)
and a focus solely on packet delivery and related routing issues is
not representative of the mission of network operators. So my
personal opinion is there is a place for discussion of the impact of
email issues, p2p issues and so forth within the NANOG community, as
these significantly impact the NANOG community, but the NANOG list
itself is not the venue. There is a need for discussion in other
areas too, such as IPv6 deployment (i.e. what the IETF does not
cover, how to actually make stuff work, rather than how to design
protocols) and so forth.
NANOG could, and I think should, take a larger role in discussing
best practices in operations of networks.
