On 16 Oct 2007, at 11:38, Joe Abley wrote:
Since I've heard from a couple of people who are having problems,
allow me to channel Betty:
Follow:
To create username and password: https://www.nanog.org/
registration/username.epl
or
To have username and password resent:
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
On 9 Oct 2007, at 06:16, Alex Pilosov wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, vijay gill wrote:
Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of
focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and
actual value to be had from NANOG, we are getting tied up
discussing
Is the reduced usefulness of NANOG that Vijay observes a result of
the revolution, or a result of SRH no longer being involved, or a
sign of the times, or something else?
see my other email, i think that point is overemphasised..
I'm not at all convinced you can make such a sweeping
On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:19, Joe Abley wrote:
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho,
maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take
it to your next SC meeting?
I will not be on the SC after NANOG 41
On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:57, William B. Norton wrote:
On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation
on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told
that I need to follow this procedure and submit
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:10PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
no sc hat at all
the appended message earned me a formal complaint from the mlc. they
have accused me of making a personal attack. of course, joe nacchio
(apologies for misspelling at first), is a very well known public
figure;
On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 06:49:36PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Christian Nielsen wrote:
If the issue is to save costs for the attendees, IMHO the best place
would be Las Vegas during the non-peak travel dates.
Nanog Starts on Sundays and goes to
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:46PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
impossible to compare ripe and nanog. ripe meetings are rir meetings
and subsidized by ripe/ncc, which has a monopoly on ip address space.
in north america, nanog is separate from arin. imiho, this is a very
good thing. same in
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:27:57PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
FWIW, with the increase to $450, the ~$500 it costs to attend RIPE
for five days, incl. breakfast/lunch, seems like a much better
value. It would not surprise me to see a further drop in attendance
from people doing the
10 matches
Mail list logo
