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 func
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 eB
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
> wrote:
>> Hello Brian:
>>
>> If you go to the Donors page (http://www.newnog.org/do
On 1/5/11 11:21 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> I only repeated what I saw on the link. Trying to not toss too much
> confusion into the fray. I am just looking for a way to get younger new
> members into the org. They always have little money and no employer to pay
> for them. I knew some part ti
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 d
We seem to be rehashing the wheel here... All this was accounted for in
the proposal sent up by the membership workgroup. Members get a
discount as set outside the bylaws. This should not be codified in the
bylaws, but in the schedule of fees for conference registration/etc.
Students already
On 10/29/10 3:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> I hear a lot of grousing, at NANOG meetings and elsewhere, about the quality
> of network engineering education -- about academic researchers who are doing
> network research without any idea what the problems that need solving are,
> and about studen
On 10/27/10 10:36 PM, Chris Malayter wrote:
> I think we should be trying to find ways to be more INCLUSIVE of other
> classes, aka retired network professionals, students, etc... then trying to
> set the flat fee and move right along.
I already indicated that I would be willing to support disco
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 l
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 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 extrao
On 10/27/10 5:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> I don't understand "probably, and I don't understand "loose enough".
You don't understand English? That's ok, I don't understand most languages.
> What is the rationale for trying to restrict membership to those who
> qualify as network engineers? To seek
On 10/27/10 3:53 PM, kris foster wrote:
> "The mission *includes* education and outreach to the academic community" is
> not the same as "The mission is education and outreach to the academic
> community".
>>> The mission includes education and outreach to the academic community.
>>> If students
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 go
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 th
On 10/27/10 2:50 PM, kris foster wrote:
> The mission includes education and outreach to the academic community.
> If students are not implied, then maybe we're working on different
> definitions of some of these words.
> 3. Mission
> The purpose of NewNOG is to provide forums in the North Americ
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 thi
On 10/27/10 1:22 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:
> 4.1 (new) Members are required to be active within the Internet
>network operations community by way of current employment or previous
>employment if retired, participation in industry forums, academic
>instruction or scholarship, or volunteer p
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 co
On 10/6/10 2:50 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> I guess I miss the point. When I can go to
> nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/agenda.php and watch and listen to the full
> meeting, why would I need a transcopt?
Not everyone can make the community meeting. The community meeting is
not always broadcast.
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 h
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 qualif
On 10/5/10 5:42 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
> Regarding concern over lifetime memberships, many nonprofits I support
> allow me to buy N years of membership in advance. If "lifetime" were
> merely changed to a decade pre-purchase of membership, would the folks
> who think it is a bad idea suddenly s
On 10/4/10 4:45 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> [0] - i know some rir boards who are asking themselves about where they
>get income when folk have /32s and do not need to come back for
>more ipv6 space as frequently as they have for ipv4.
Irrelevant. RIRs can charge companies an annual f
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 ha
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,
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 engineerin
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. A
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 10/1/10 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 classifi
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 obv
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
Andy Davidson wrote:
> A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature
> community. Let it happen. The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy or
> early for the formal agenda. Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog site. A
> good fringe will encourage more long-
On 7/1/10 2:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> imiho, there has been slow and cautious movement from our academic
> non-commercial roots toward more industry focus. one reason it has been
> slow is because there's no reversing direction if we think we have gone
> too far.
When I think "commercial," I th
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
intereste
Jay Hennigan wrote:
> If the membership fee were relatively low and a lifetime or long-term
> (like five year) it could be relatively painless. Membership would give
> voting rights as well as the mailing list.
>
> Say $50 lifetime membership and increase the meeting cost by $50 for
> non-member
Hank Kilmer wrote:
> According to the website, the board officially ratified the bylaws. So
> there are "real" bylaws. The issue here is that there is a great deal
> of work setting up a 501c3 organization to run NANOG and there are goals
> that wish to be met. All this means is that there are
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 th
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 m
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
Scott Weeks wrote:
>> Shrdlu wrote:
>>> seen it look at again. Can we please remind people in a friendly way
>>> that a disclaimer of this length doesn't belong on a mailing list?
>
>
> --- s...@labrats.us wrote:
>> Some people do not have a choice about disclaimers. If I was to send an
>
>
Some people do not have a choice about disclaimers. If I was to send an
email to an external recipient from my corporate account, the exchange
servers automatically add a rather length disclaimer to the bottom of
the email. This is regardless of whether it goes to a mailing list or
any other
I just noticed that there is a change to the nanog@ list where the email
is now appearing to come from nanaog-bounces+@nanog.org. I
wonder how mang filters this is going to break, as it broke mine. Lucky
I check my spam filter.
-Sean
___
Nanog-fu
Philip Smith wrote:
> NANOG Media Proposal
>
>
> Once the media request has been approved, their attendance at NANOG
> will be by complimentary registration and they will receive a special
> badge with "MEDIA" written in large letters which they should please
> wear when in c
Lynda wrote:
> I've seen a lot. Sometimes it feels like I've seen everything, and more
> than once for most of it. On the other hand, I just attended a talk on
> the UNIX Command Line, and learned a couple of things I hadn't known
> before. Many presentations are the same. Just because the audi
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 ab
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
>
[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 posti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Personally, I think that all posting access to the list should be
> removed. Yes, nobody should be able to post messages to the list.
> Instead, posting would be via a blog website, and the blog messages
> would then be echoed into various NANOG mailing lists based on
>
Paul Ferguson wrote:
> I guess my first question is: Is a mailing list "committee"
> really needed?
>
> This seemed like a mistake when it was first imposed, and now it
> seems like a larger mistake.
>
> Committees always seem to fail.
It seems to me that trying to enforce policy on any body wi
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
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
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> I'll freely admit that I have an agenda here: I'd like to see these headers
> used universally, and I'd like to see them fully supported in MUAs. As that
> happens, I hope that use of message-body headers and footers will diminish,
> as those often wind up being repeatedly,
Scott Weeks wrote:
> The footer just bugs me, so I have no real reason for disliking that other
> than personal choice. We all know what mailing list it is, how to
> unsubscribe and how to find info regarding the list. If you notice on my
> email to NANOG lately, I put in lines of return char
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. Un
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 I
Donald Stahl wrote:
>> By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the
>> current content is not a ridiculous waste of time.
I gotta agree with Rob. The current discussion looks like nothing but
two overgrown sarcastic children having a whining contest.
> The original que
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
Michael Dillon wrote:
>> For example, as was discussed on the nanog list, why not
>> identify a BCP for identifying the appropriate contact at an
>> organization?
>
> If you can't get a significant level of participation in
> writing such BCPs, then people won't buy into them and
> won't follo
Lynda wrote:
> Okay, so we've moved to mailman for nanog. Mailman has a nice feature
> that will turn all rich text/mime/html garbage into nice honest text.
> Any chance that it will be implemented? It's one of the things I like
> about mailman. It certainly makes mailing lists more pleasant, an
What's happened to the list headers recently? The "return-path" header
is now blank.
Any ideas?
-Sean
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've hit the nail on the head. Is there any way that the NANOG mailing
list can prevent such unwanted mail between two users?
Actually, yes there is.
The NANOG list could ensure that the From, To and Cc lines never have
any addresses in them other than the one instan
Alex Pilosov wrote:
^^^this case is the one we are discussing. The mail program is broken ->
does it merit removal of subscriber from the list until mail program is
fixed?
I haven't seen any auto responders sending email to the list, so I
assume that it is sending it to the address in the "f
Lucy Lynch wrote:
and the answer to my question? Is consensus of the MLC determined
by the members who make a given call, or by the MLC as a whole?
Makes a big difference in terms of the report you gave yesterday
where some decisions/actions were gated by the consensus of the MLC.
Not a part
Jim Popovitch wrote:
Hmmm... I'd have to say that seems like reverse logic. ;-) I don't
want to reject all vacation messages, just the ones from mailing list
list traffic. So, in order to be successful I'll need a list of all
nanog subscribers so that I can make sure they can't send me vacatio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does the review of the PC hope to accomplish, anyways?
Make sure it is not a marketing presentation or sales pitch.
Make sure that slides are reasonably clear and understandable.
Make sure that the topic has not been thrashed to death.
Make sure that the topic is r
William B. Norton wrote:
2) people tend to specialize; they may be perfect to provide
insightful data into a discussion on Network Planning, but not
understand the Security futures issues enough to rank a slide deck.
This is the reality of the situation and some PC members have dealt
with that b
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
No. What you are suggesting is that I waste a minute or two for every
ignorant or uncaring person on this list. I don't have that kind of time.
This is supposed to be an operators list. If you can't meet a very simple
baseline guide for not being an idio
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Pete Templin wrote:
For those of us who want to learn about 24x7 Support Strategies but don't
care to read about veggie oil and biodiesel as a staffing strategy, having
folk adjust the subject of a tangential thread is a feature. OK?
Adjusting the subject line is a good
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote:
Randy himself given a good summary of AUP/autoresponders responses. I
think its fair to say that there's community support, and this proposal
should go through - and the wording suggested by Michael.Dillion seems to
be one that clarifies that only mail to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
Alex Pilosov wrote:
7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and
last names, rather than aliases.
there are people and cultures where there is only one name. no such thing as
last and first names.
Further, I would
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NANOG reserves the right to remove any member of the mailing
list who has configured automatic response software to
respond to any address other than the envelope sender,
What is the "envelope sender"?
Policies should be in plain English.
Yeah, I
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 t
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, any use of challenge-response (even only for direct email) is
reprehensible enough that we don't want those silly people on the list. :)
However, that's not covered by the above AUP. Operative words: "validate a
post to NANOG mailing list
78 matches
Mail list logo
