Does not seem that the DNS query returns any IPv6 information. And the
normal page is just blank at the moment...
-Sean
On 2/7/11 8:24 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
Hello Everyone:
We now have a fully functioning IPv6 website for http://www.newnog.org.
If you find any site
On 2/1/11 12:13 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
For what it's worth, I tried to do just this with a Canadian credit card and
paypal told me something along the lines that Canadian credit cards were not
acceptable.
What? Just Canadian credit cards are unacceptable...
I am actually surprised that
Has the procedure been established for that yet?
On 1/17/11 9:09 AM, William B. Norton wrote:
He may have been asking how to pay for a membership
On Monday, January 17, 2011, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
mksm...@adhost.com wrote:
Hello Brian:
If you go to the Donors page
On 1/5/11 8:07 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Who gets to verify the veracity of student IDs from the UK, or from France,
or from Egypt, or from Pakistan? How would they do it? Is it really worth the
trouble?
Someone please explain to me how accepting students outside of North
America as members
On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students.
That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student
membership didn't survive. I think
On 10/27/10 2:57 PM, Lynda wrote:
On 10/27/2010 1:14 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote:
If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended
period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to
remain a member of NewNOG and pay
On 10/27/10 3:22 PM, John Springer wrote:
So while we are discussing what paid membership should be, may we not
discuss whether or not we should have paid membership at all? From my
perspective, we seem to be permanently accepting an insufficiently
good idea along with a lot of really good
On 10/27/10 6:32 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
When we were discussing the fee structure in August and September, I
used this argument, and nobody could offer me a convincing counter
argument. My argument was... If we are offering a fellow membership
for someone that has contributed a extraordinary
On 10/27/10 6:44 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
If there isn't vetting, why does the board approve membership? No
other nonprofit [advocacy, professional, charity] to which I either
belong or contribute has this kind of barrier to taking my money.
The board does not need to vote if we don't want it.
On 10/27/10 10:11 PM, John Springer wrote:
Sorry, not to be dense, but what? I believe it is all up for discussion.
Or is that code for shut up?
It is already decided and voted upon. Our mission at this point is to
determine what this will look like and try to reach a consensus. It is
too
On 10/6/10 8:32 AM, Will Hargrave wrote:
On 06/10/10 15:02, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Yes, yes, I know about all the reasons in-person meetings have certain
advantages: one group of challenges in going virtual is replicating those
interactions. But again: *this group* seems uniquely qualified to
On 10/6/10 8:42 AM, Randy Whitney wrote:
As I am reading through Matt's notes since I cannot attend NANOG in
person this time, I'm pondering whether it may make sense in the future
for NewNOG to set aside budget to employ stenographers to cover at least
the plenary of the conference. Matt has
On 10/6/10 3:51 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
it thus may be better for the position of recording secretary to exist
and to be charged with producing just such transcripts. (Which should
be reviewed by attendees and marked up with their corrections -- that is,
in a fashion which shows who
On 10/2/10 10:46 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
This really depends on what the mission of the organization is. A
vehicle to do NANOG conferences? A way of hosting mailing lists? Or
something a bit more ambitious that addresses the need for a
professional organization for network engineering
On 10/3/10 7:55 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
As with networking protocols, perfect is the enemy of good enough. The
question at this point isn't can we please everyone, its is this
draft sufficiently functional to get us to the next version. I think
the answer is clearly yes.
Clearly, I think
On 10/3/10 11:01 AM, Sean Figgins wrote:
I think this is all I am going to say about this any more. In the end,
it doesn't matter. NANOG will still be NANOG. If this experiment
fails, there will be something that replaces it.
Everyone, I realize that I was overly harsh, and after checking
On 10/1/10 11:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership
states, members and non still stands.
if there is a membership fee, i can see a student discount.
Not everyone on the membership working group agreed with all the
membership
On 10/2/10 7:39 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
this has been a massively sloppy process and i just can't condone it.
It is not from having a lack of people step up and try to help. From an
insiders point of view from the membership wg, these were plenty of
people that volunteered to help, and a few
On 10/2/10 9:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Randy - are you really this bent out of shape over student memberships
that may never get utilized?
not really. it's the puffery of fellows, lifers, ...
Current schedule of fees is $100 for members, and $1000 for life, or 10
years worth of fees. As far
Maybe I am just picking nits, but why do we have the program committee
definitions spread between section 9 (9.1) and section 10 (10.3.1 and
10.3.2)? Shouldn't it all be within 9.1, along with all the other
committees?
I am also concerned with the consistency of the outline, but that IS
just
On 9/21/10 5:46 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
There is a trope among American entrepreneurs wherein one refers to a
new, yet to be formally named company as NewCo or NewCorp.
Not just entrepreneurs, but existing companies that go through naming
and branding changes. They will use an
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The $600 is only the walk-up fee. NANOG is less if you register earlier,
as little as $450.
As for whether that is expensive or not, I encourage readers to research
other conferences and compare for themselves.
Thanks for the clarification. I remembered it
On 6/30/10 4:00 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
If someone entered the meeting space without paying, I agree. If all of
this transpired in the hallways, I suggest that this topic is neither
appropriate for this or any other NANOG mailing list.
Once again, I find myself in agreement with Martin.
kris foster wrote:
If Dorian (and Sean) are not talking about governance, then I agree.
The problem on the community's plate right now is governance, and
discussion of membership in NewNOG, Inc. needs to happen.
Um... I was talking about membership as a way to determine who is
interested
Randy Bush wrote:
but, with no data from our fearless [0] leadership, what else are we to
do, talk about NATO black helicopters?
We could talk about natto, but what is there to say about fermented soy
beans other than they are sticky and stink?
Seriously, though, I get the feeling that the
On 6/4/10 8:24 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Note carefully: I'm not expressing any opinion about the reality
of what's happened, only about its appearance. I don't know
what the reality is. I'm not even sure I care, if I put on my
selfish hat for a moment: it probably won't matter to me no
On 5/31/10 7:44 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The fact that Merit have presented accounts for NANOG many times in
the past demonstrates that there's a separate NANOG account at
Merit, does it not?
Probably. It's likely that Merit has been talking about simple charts of
account or
Koch, Christian wrote:
43 was my first nanog - needless to say, majority of the people
attending were on laptops not paying attention to the presenter.
Some people can multi task. They use their computers to get a better
view of the presentations, look up relevant material, and be better
Joe Abley wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_(Canada)
This is not the first time that the joing NANOG/ARIN meeting has been
scheduled over Canadian Thanksgiving (the other time was NANOG 38). It
continues to annoy. Could we either arrange for Canadian Thanksgiving
to be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's the reason we need list moderators, to CULTIVATE the list and
encourage more signal in the postings.
I don't know about moderators, but I do think list admins are
appropriate. You want someone to watch the list and curtail
inappropriate behavior (and
Jim Popovitch wrote:
Some advice, once given to me by a NANOGer, is:
just use .procmailrc to change your headers as you see fit
Not everyone that reads NANOG runs their own mail servers, or have
access to procmail. Personally, I HATE procmail. It's almost as bad as
manually writing the
Jim Popovitch wrote:
:-) Generally I Agree. One counter-point: as the intertubes are
focusing on smaller and smaller devices, Subject line realestate is
becoming a valid concern.
I'll agree with you there. Some smart phones don't have much in the way
of line length.
-Sean
Lynda wrote:
John Payne wrote:
Heh, just reread the message. It's actually not clear that you
aren't doing the import.
Sorry about the noise clarification requested.
I think that Betty et al might want to consider a follow up message. I
misread this as well, John. Until you
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
The Register reports that customers have found that their
defunct or forgotten-about sub-domains have been taken over by
Network Solutions to send users to ad pages. By digging through
a 59K-word user agreement, you can find the following text:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Funny thing is that if you read the first sentence in section 3 (Mission)
of the NANOG charter, it seems to include that goal.
The purpose of NANOG is to provide forums in the North
American region for education and the sharing of knowledge
for the
Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Why? The people who bellyache and the people who have skin in the
game are by and large a disjoint set. As someone who's put up (in
more ways than one), I encourage those who are not willing to put up
to shut up.
Randy Bush wrote:
The NANOG mailing list has never been in good order.
The NANOG meetings have always had complaints.
The NANOG community is composed of disparate parties with disparate
interests, each convinced that their interests are the only ones of
operation relevance.
it would all
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about:
NANOG reserves the right to remove email addresses from the mailing list
if list member creates technical problems for the mailing list servers
including, but not limited to, list members who run a challenge-response
server that replies
38 matches
Mail list logo
