[GROW] Re: [WGADOPTION] draft-ramseyer-grow-peering-api - ends 11/29/2024 (Nov 29, 2024)

Mohamed I remember that at least as authors we discussed some models that were proposed in some discussions on the WG. At least the ones that we reviewed, we found that the interconnection model was more about transport and physical links and didn't fit well with public link peering links. I trie

[GROW]Re: Working Group Call for Adoption for draft-ramseyer-grow-peering-api (start 07/Jun/2024 end 21/Jun/2024)

already > there. > > Reading this remark I would like to ask the following question: is it you > and your co-authors official position that route servers are in scope of > this draft? > > Regards > Matthias > > > On 28.06.24, 14:13, "Arturo Servin" arturo.ser.

[GROW]Re: Working Group Call for Adoption for draft-ramseyer-grow-peering-api (start 07/Jun/2024 end 21/Jun/2024)

Matthias One assumption that we have is that the Peering Database (in this case PeeringDB but it could be any) is the canonical source of most of the information that you need to set up a peering session. In the case of RS, all that information is already there and there is no need to add it agai

Re: [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call

Hi I think that a big problem with this document is that it is trying to be BCOP without any practical operational deployment at all. So far, it is a theoretical document that we are not sure is going to work (for the reasons that we have pointed out.) >More broadly this approach would discourag

Re: [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call

On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 11:21 PM Barry O'Donovan (Open Solutions) < ba...@opensolutions.ie> wrote: > Hi all, > > > > One comment I did make was that it was paradoxical, on one hand, to > bemoan the depeering of large network(s) from route servers and discuss > how IXPs could engage to bring them ba

Re: [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call

Hi >But we are trying to solve only one aspect of the problem: by not using >anymore the unauthenticated IRRs we will have removed a whole class of >possibile hijackings. And also you might invalidate a lot of valid objects causing issues for the networks using the RS in the IX. Let me make a fe

Re: Stalled IX requests in Google peering

Will You can send me the ticket number(s) by email. Also, if anyone else has (have) similar issues feel free to email me. Regards as On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 15:17, Will OBrien via NANOG wrote: > Since google is abandoning RS routes, we worked on setting up IX peering > across the board. > > Al

Re: [address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management

nseen (but not for sure unused) ASNs. Regards as On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:27 PM Arturo Servin wrote: > > I cannot answer for Mike, but for those that I know, yes, those are > multihomed. > > So there is a legitimate use of an ASN that there isn't in the Internet > (you ne

Fwd: 2022 MANRS Ambassadors

I think that this message hasn't been shared here. Regards as -- Forwarded message - From: Israel Rosas Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 16:12 Subject: [lacnog] 2022 MANRS Ambassadors To: LACNOG Dear all, Happy Monday! I’m reaching out to you to announce that today we are opening th

Re: Starting to Drop Invalids for Customers

Mark Invalid according to RPKI or IRR? Or both? Regards as On Tue, 10 Dec 2019, 18:22 Randy Bush, wrote: > mark, > > > Just to let this group know that we've started the process of > > activating the dropping of Invalids for all our eBGP customers. > > cool. any stats and lessons appreciated.

Re: someone is using my AS number

Proper filtering from the upstream providers. .as On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alejandro Acosta < alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately RPKI is not useful in this case. > > Question: What else could be done to prevent this? > > > Alejandro, > > > > On 6/12/19 12:05 PM, Philip

Peering Forum LAC: Call for Presentations

The Latin American and Caribbean Peering Forum LACPF-2018 will be held in Panama City, Panama on the April 30th, 2018. The goal of the LACPF is to promote and provide collaboration spaces in topics related to interconnection and peering, IXPs, CDNs, transport capacity, and colo facilities among oth

Re: Puerto Rico Internet Exchange

What about the PRBI project for an IXP? I think that is working, possibly it just need a hand. If possible, I would like to put my effort in something that is working and improve it rather than start something else from scratch. Regards as On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 at 14:15 Mike Hammett wrote: > Rea

Re: Here we go again.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 at 07:08 Dovid Bender wrote: > Consumers can always chose with their wallet. > > As long as you have options, which is the basic problem. There isn't real alternative options.

Re: Measuring the quality of Internet access

Would be M-lab (https://www.measurementlab.net/about/) what you are looking for? .as On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 at 13:20 Max Tulyev wrote: > Thank you! > > I got one more reply off-list - and again it is connected to SamKnows. > > But I can't figure out what SamKnows uses as the destination for tests?

Re: [sidr] working group adoption call for draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > ​sure, but I dont' always use the RS at the IX.​ >> >> > ... and you don't have to trust the RS if you do. > > This feel like a prefect being the enemy of the good type discussion -- > you shouldn't use RS, and you should do your own validat

Re: [sunset4] IPv4 to Historic: sending a directional message rather than changing state

Joel I think that the impact to create behavioral change by declaring IPv4 historic is going to be zero. The impact in IPv6 deployment that declaring IPv4 historic is going to be make is zero. People will be sitting in the fence regarding if IPv4 is historic or no. Regards as On Wed, 6 Apr 201

Re: [sunset4] Mandating use of IPv6 in examples

Andrei I support your effort. As someone that has tried in its own docs, I can tell that It won't be easier as IPv6 addresses are a bit messier and longer than v4. But worth the effort and I think is a good idea. Regards as On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 at 14:12 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > +1 > > S

Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02

Support, and agree on Tim and Randy's comments. .as On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 at 06:59 Xialiang (Frank) wrote: > Hi > > I have read this draft and support the adoption of it. > > > > B.R. > > Frank > ___ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.iet

Re: bad announcement taxonomy

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:15 PM, wrote: > > How about Origin Obfuscation > > Obfuscation implies intent. Most leaks and mis-announcements don't > have intent because they're whoopsies. > Well, if you take a route, change its origin as your own (or any other) and re-announce it (perhaps just a

Re: bad announcement taxonomy

Laundered route I like it. Or re-originated laundered route (it has more meaning but a bit too long) .as On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 at 09:33 Casey Russell wrote: > I think Tony's on the right track here. I vote we call this "Route > Laundering", the people who do it "Route Launderers", and the rout

Re: [sidr] Validation Reconsidered (again/again) question

+ 1 for adoption. And hopefully somebody would say "I take this". Regards as On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 at 23:04 Geoff Huston wrote: > > > On 6 Nov 2015, at 12:52 PM, Christopher Morrow < > christopher.mor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Please take 2 weeks time to consider: > > > > "This document was

Re: EyeBall View

There are a plenty of services/research doing that. M-Lab RIPE Atlas Speedtest to name some. .as On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 at 10:35 Dovid Bender wrote: > All, > > I had an idea to create a product where we would have a host on every > EyeBall network. Customers could then connect to these hosts and

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://visa24.info/caught.php?o2hl> Arturo Servin

Re: [sidr] posted: draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt

As I mentioned, I do not have a strong position but I think that is important to have the record of why we are changing this. It could be something very simply in the intro of the current document, an appendix or it could be a separate one. -as On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 at 16:02 Samuel Weiler wrote:

Re: [sidr] New Version Notification for draft-ymbk-sidr-transfer-00.txt

How would you define that address space is unused? Because it is unannounced to the global BGP table? Because there is not traffic to it even though is announced? This question has come up in several policy discussion in almost every RIR, it has never been consensus on the answer. So we should pr

Re: Seeking IPv6 Security Resources

Chris Some that come to my mind: draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security and (not sure how up to date is this one) RFC 6092 Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service RFC 5157 IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning

Re: Oi Assistance

Try LACNOG or GTER (aka Brazilian NOG group) emailing list. May be somebody there could help. Regards as On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Brian Free wrote: > Humberto, > I have been contacted by a couple of engineers inside of Oi or its > subsidiaries. I'm pursuing those options at the mome

Re: pay.gov and IPv6

HE should work then, perhaps another problem + IPv6. -as On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > Windows 8 running Google Chrome as the browser. > > Matthew Kaufman > > > On 3/17/2014 11:46 AM, Arturo Servin wrote: > > > No Happy Eyeballs? > &g

Re: pay.gov and IPv6

No Happy Eyeballs? Perhaps also time to ditch XP and IE for something new as well. -as On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > Random IPv6 complaint of the day: redirects from FCC.gov to pay.gov fail > when clients have IPv6 enabled. Work fine if IPv6 is off. One more set

Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > Is there some technical reason that BGP is not an option? You could allow > them to announce their AT&T space via you as a secondary. unless it is a /26, /25 or something shorter. Even with a /24 things may get messy. IPv4 is coming to a

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

"4. IANA Considerations" I prefer option 2. A fully uncoordinated space, otherwise we will open a policy can of worms. -as On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:58 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : The ALT S

Re: BCP38.info

Not working in the Internet access business but as Internet citizen this sounds interesting. You would need some motivations to make ISPs register and perhaps some kind of validation in the future. But as initial step it sounds cool. .as On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Andrei Robachevsky wro

Re: Best practice on TCP replies for ANY queries

I think is better idea to rate-limit your responses rather than limiting the size of them. AFAIK, bind has a way to do it. .as On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > Hi ML > > > > Yeah I can understand. Even DNSSEC will have issues with it which makes me > worry about rule eve

Re: [sidr] possible interim meeting for draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points

Sounds like a good way forward. /as On 10/15/13 3:40 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > Roque, > > I support your proposal to revise the doc to address only the TAL case. > > Steve > > > > ___ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.

Re: WG Review: IPv6 Maintenance (6man)

Would you expand a bit on this? Jul 2014 - Advance IPv6 core specifications to Internet standard And after the discussions in Berlin about fragmentation, the dates of the milestones look a bit ambitious to me. Regards, as On 10/11/13 2:38 PM, The IESG wrote: > The IPv6

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

It is clear to me that the IETF cannot be away from Internet Governance discussions. Yes, it is politics and we do not like politics, but that is the way the Internet is these days. It is also appears that we do not have consensus of how to participate and what to say in those dis

Re: leader statements

: > > From: Arturo Servin > > > Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless. > > I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of > good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's

Re: leader statements

Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless. That is not good for the IETF and it reflects that we are not ready for the dynamics of the Internet that we created. .as On 10/10/13 3:49 PM, manning bill wrote: > the "leaders" are there to inform and moderate

Re: Montevideo statement

We appointed our leaders, we have to trust them. They had to do a call, an important one and they made it. I support what they did, that is what we chose them for, to represent us and be our voice. We cannot expect that they ask our opinion for every decision they made, that is no

Re: [OPSEC] Call for Adoption: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-nd-security-01

Yes, adopt. This document presents a good assestment of the challenges/problems/vulnerabilities that ND has. Regards, as On 9/16/13 7:01 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > A reminder that this adoption call is ongoing… > > Please review the draft and comment if you think that this shou

Re: Remote participation to igovupdate BoF

channeled to the room > microphones. > > The BoF chairs (yet to be determined) or the AD MAY request that the meeting > be covered with MeetEcho or WebEx. That's up to them, so you might want to > contact Jari about this. > > Yoav > > On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:12 AM, Ar

Remote participation to igovupdate BoF

Hi, I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation for this BoF: igovupdate I am not sure what are the proper channels for the request but I think it would be very valuable for remote participants to attend this meeting (including me that won't go to Vanc.).

Re: [DNSOP] Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.

On 9/12/13 3:02 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> 3) A relying party thus requires a demonstration that is secure against a >> replay attack from one or more trusted parties to be assured that the time >> assertion presented is current but this need not necessarily be t

Re: pgp signing in van

On 9/9/13 5:17 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > It might be worth thinking about why ssh and ssl work so well, and PGP/GPG > don't. Because normally with SSL and SSH the complexity is in the server, not the client. When the client needs to verify the identity of some site with SSL we have the backgrou

Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA

On 9/6/13 4:47 AM, Adam Novak wrote: > On 09/05/2013 08:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Tell me what the IETF could be doing that it isn't already doing. >> >> I'm not talking about what implementors and operators and users should >> be doing; still less about what legislators should or sho

Re: New Mailing List: Internet governance and IETF technical work

On 9/5/13 6:01 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > On 9/4/13, IAB Chair wrote: >> As requested by the community, the IAB has decided to open a mailing list >> to >> discuss topics regarding the intersection of Internet governance and IETF >> technical work. In particular, this list will focus on issu

Re: Charging remote participants

Now I get it!! A Spanglish translation would be "It depends how the rides in the carnival goes for you" ("Depende como te va en la feria") /as On 8/26/13 1:54 PM, Dave Aronson wrote: >> As my mother used to say "What you lose on the roundabouts >> > you gain on the sw

Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

My personal opinion is that this is not black and white. There are things about PI that belong to RIRs policies, some other technical recommendations to the IETF, some other to *NOGs and probably something in between that fit in all of them. This is and will be a complex

Re: WG overview - MILE video

Kathleen, Great idea, great job! Congratulations. Best regards, as On 8/21/13 10:16 AM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote: > Hello, > > Sometime before Berlin, I had suggested the use of a video to provide an > overview of current work within a working group to see if that mig

Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

is that ISP can chose what allocation to provide to en-users (as long it based in need and under certain technical criteria -RFC6177-) and it is not dictated by the RIR. Regards, as On 8/20/13 11:46 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-08-20 16:40 , Arturo Servin wrote: >> >> So i

Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

So it seems that we agree. .as On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> >It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those >> > regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 >> > depends on the ISP alone. > As prefixes are allocated based on

Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

It was a disclaimer only. .as On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-08-20 16:33 , Arturo Servin wrote: >> > >> >I wouldn't say that it is dependent in the RIR, it is about an ISP >> > decision, not about a regional organization. (not

Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

I wouldn't say that it is dependent in the RIR, it is about an ISP decision, not about a regional organization. (note, I work for one). It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 depends on

Re: Academic and open source rate

Academic might work. "Open source" not so much as other mentioned. Does "Big Corporation" doing Open Source apply? I was tempted to propose "non-profit", but also there are organizations with large budgets. And profit driven ones with not much money. /as On 8/18/13 6:21 AM, SM w

Re: [Paper] B4: Experience with a Globally-Deployed Software Defined

l survive as the rest of the decision points could converge and > act as independent network snippets. > > -Jay. > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Jeff Kell wrote: > >> On 8/17/2013 7:14 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: >>> Hacker will love SDN ...

Re: [Paper] B4: Experience with a Globally-Deployed Software Defined

Hacker will love SDN ... :) Bye, bye dumb and resilient network ... .as On 8/17/13 8:02 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > A software defined network is one where the forwarding behavior can be > completely defined > in software running outside of the devices that perform the forwarding.

Re: Charging remote participants

In some parts of the world there are good engineers that get $100 for a week as salary. Charging remote participation will raise the bar even more for people that cannot travel and their only way to participate is in mailing lists and remotely. Providing good remote tools

Re: Radical Solution for remote participants

Well, we just had a technical session about Real Time web. This seems to me like the perfect application to show and eat own dog food. Regards, as On 8/16/13 9:07 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > The next step up from our current jabber-scribe model is to have audio input

Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again

On 8/2/13 3:39 PM, Janet P Gunn wrote: > AFAIK, you can only get a VAT refund for GOODS you take with you, not > for the VAT on goods or services "consumed" in country. > > Janet > If I print the slides of the WG that I attend, does it do the trick? :D as

Re: Time between meetings

Or eat less cookies. :) Now, seriously. I think in your case, it was just bad luck to chair to meetings one after the other. For the rest, taking punctuality more seriously would help. As you said, time is scarce and I prefer to use it in meetings than in breaks

Re: "Deprecate"

They aren't. There are still many places where I come from where operators do not support native IPv6 and people need to rely in tunnels to start trying IPv6. Regards, as On 7/30/13 11:55 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Fred, > > I was thinking of tunnels as legacy applica

Re: [Diversity] setting a goal for an inclusive IETF

AFAIK anyone can participate. You just have to said "I". Regards, as On 7/31/13 2:45 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > I would prefer that the design team are selected by diversity > parameters ( gender, region, age, necomer-oldcomer, etc). Thanks again,

Re: IETF-Blog comments (Was Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

On 7/30/13 4:42 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 7/30/13 4:40 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > > > Captchas? Recaptchas? > > > Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons. > > Yes, Akismet helps a lot. > > But this is probably a better topic for the tool

Re: IETF-Blog comments (Was Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

Captchas? Recaptchas? Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons. Regards, as On 7/30/13 4:34 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Arturo: > >> Now, something general related to the blog. Perhaps it would be good to >> enable comments, isn't it? > > Yes, that has been issue that h

IETF-Blog comments (Was Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

Jari, Peter Thanks for the article. It is really welcomed to see that "diversity" is something that the IETF is taking really seriously. Now, something general related to the blog. Perhaps it would be good to enable comments, isn't it? I think that it would be good to int

Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

. Regards, as On 7/28/13 3:20 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: > On Jul 28, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > >> That may work as well. >> >> It depends on the time that the presenters have to make the material >> available. >> >> The important i

Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

scan it for important things) Regards, as On 7/28/13 3:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Why not put the presentations up on YouTube as podcasts. That way people > can watch them before starting off for the meeting. > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Arturo Servin <

Re: Oh look! [Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials]

Why during the F2F IETF meeting? It seems that is not a good way to use the time of an AD during the F2F IETF meeting. I think is a good idea to provide people remote-access to ADs, but doing it during the F2F IETF meeting does not look like a good use of resources. /as On 7/27

Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

I agree with Randy. Presentation material, documents, etc. should be available in advance at least 1 or 2 weeks before the IETF (not 2 hours, not 2 days) and to support the discussion (not to be presented). People in the meeting should have read it (draft and slides) and be prepar

Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

Even in context is rude. Even when doing it is because of practical reasons and for the good use of the scarce meeting time, I think that is one of the reasons why the IETF is so intimidating for newcomers. Regards, as On 7/27/13 10:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> > It's not wrong. >>

Re: IAB Statement on Dotless Domains

On 7/13/13 12:27 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: "Livingood, Jason" > > > FWIW, I think for most larger companies with multi-billion dollar > > revenues streams it is less about the up-front fees to apply & > > operationalize a gTLD than the long term business potential. > > I g

Re: Regarding call Chinese names

On 7/11/13 10:58 AM, Simon Perreault wrote: > I have a question: I think I've seen Chinese names written in both > orders. That is, sometimes "Hui Deng" will be written "Deng Hui". Am I > right? Does this happen often? What is the most common order? Is there a > way to guess what order a name is w

Re: Regarding call Chinese names

Great document, I really liked. Same as SM I would suggest change "western" for something else. And I would also suggest to move section 4 before explaining the titles. I guess the reading would be much easier. Regards, as On 7/10/13 9:55 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Deng Hui, > At

Re: Draft submission deadlines change

ards, > Alexa > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > >> Hello, >> >>I was checking the deadlines for submitting drafts. Clear it is >> Monday 15th July but it does not say the time. >> >> >> Thanks, >> as >> >>

Re: Draft submission deadlines change

Hello, I was checking the deadlines for submitting drafts. Clear it is Monday 15th July but it does not say the time. Thanks, as On 7/3/13 2:17 AM, IETF Chair wrote: > Please note that for IETF 87, there is only one deadline for draft > submission: Monday 15th July. Previously, there ha

Re: [OPSEC] Revised Charter Text

It looks good to me. No objections. Regards, as On 6/30/13 6:11 PM, KK wrote: > Hey Folks, > > Just a reminder, we'll be wrapping this up today. > > Thanks, > KK > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:59 AM, KK > wrote: > > Dear All, > > The chairs in conjunction w

Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

Yes, but instead of 150 volunteers from other organizations we could have 500. So the probabilities are back to the same. /as On 6/27/13 4:07 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > I believe the proposal as stated would further exacerbate that problem - not > for a given company, but for pretty much

Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

does not change too much. Regards, as On 6/27/13 12:59 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Arturo Servin wrote: >>What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to >> meetings? > Acculturation: the opportunity over time to absorb the IETF cu

Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

I have a general question. What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to meetings? - That nomcom participants know the IETF - That nomcom participant know in person people appointed to IESG, IAB, etc - To avoid game/abuse the system by an organization?

Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

SM, I read the draft and although I like the idea I have some concerns. Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However, in remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody attended t

Re: [IAB] RSOC Appointments

ith the RSE and the IAB to develop policies n the creation of >> new RFC Series streams. >> >> 3) Periodic reviews of the RFSE performance. >> >> 4) Working with the RSE and the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee >> (IAOC) on the statements of work for contract

Re: [IAB] RSOC Appointments

I checked the call for nommitantios (Sent on april 24th 2013 on the ietf-announce) and it does not describe what should be the qualifications of the candidates. I think that this enough to alienate new people (as they may think that they are not good candidates for the position because of lack

Re: /25's prefixes announced into global routing table?

And this presentation by Geoff Huston: http://iepg.org/2011-11-ietf82/2011-11-13-bgp2011.pdf Regards, as On 6/22/13 11:48 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 22, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Yes… It will probably settle out somewhere around 100-125K routes. > Owen - > > Can y

Re: Policy makers

On 6/21/13 2:38 AM, SM wrote: > At 11:00 20-06-2013, The IAOC wrote: >> series of events and programs in South America. This would include: >> >> - Increasing the IETF Fellows and policy makers from the region > > I don't see any policy makers reviewing Internet-Drafts. I don't see > any policy

Re: Conclusions on South American IETF Meeting

Thank you Bob and the IAOC for taking the time to analize the possiblities of a meeting outside North America, Europe and Asia. Independently of the result, I think it had been a good opportunity for many of us to take advantage of the momentum and to initiate some actions to promote the

Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt

Ron, Warren In general I tent to agree with you. Would you have references or data to back up these two statements? 1) " Most popular TCP [RFC0793] implementations leverage this technology and restrict their segment size so that IP fragmentation is not required." 2) " As a result,

Re: Fwd: [ISOC] Applications open for ISOC Fellowship to IETF 88 (Vancouver)

Ignore! Wrong list. Jetlag. my apologies, as

Fwd: [ISOC] Applications open for ISOC Fellowship to IETF 88 (Vancouver)

Para los interesados. Slds as Original Message Subject:[ISOC] Applications open for ISOC Fellowship to IETF 88 (Vancouver) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:02:37 + From: Steve Conte To: isoc-members-annou...@elists.isoc.org Dear Colleagues, The Intern

Re: IETF Diversity

Dave, We created an IETF-TF in LACNOG; as you we also think that only a meeting is not enough and along with ISOC, ccTLDs, LACNIC and other organizations we are trying to encourage and prepare more people to participate in the IETF by sending comments, reviewing documents and writing RFCs. The

Re: [v6ops] Limiting the size of the IPv6 header chain (draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain)

Agreed. Let's ask some "running code" people some input about the practical constraints. /as On 6/12/13 6:21 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: >>> So a limit of 128 would currently probably be ok, but I personally would >>> prefer the limit to be a bit higher just to have some extra margi

Re: Bogons filtering

This draft is now RFC6441 and BCP 171 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6441 .as On 6/10/13 11:49 PM, Jayram A. Deshpande wrote: > Hello, > > > With IPv4 being almost exhausted[1] , I am curious to know how many net > admins have the Bogon filtering ACLs still hanging around ? > > Goo

Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (was Re: Re: draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-01)

ator > problem if you expect to be able to find an l4 header as part of your > forwarding decision >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Arturo Servin >> mailto:arturo.ser...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> There is another conversation in v6op

Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (was Re: Re: draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-01)

There is another conversation in v6ops that mentioned that switching ASICs do not inspect beyond 40 bytes. -as On 6/9/13 10:46 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: > Ray, > > On 06/08/2013 01:06 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: >> I was thinking something along the lines of: >> >> - The preferred len

Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org]

I have mixed opinions, filters in general work well (some false positives like these ones that are moved to my "Last Call" filter) but in general it is ok. But I would not oppose to a new list for LC only. Regards, as On 6/7/13 4:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I think that IE

Re: GMail IPv6 IMAP Issue, or is it Just Me?

It works to me, a different one by the way: telnet -6 imap.gmail.com 993 Trying 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::6c... Connected to gmail-imap.l.google.com. Escape character is '^]'. ] ^] telnet> q Connection closed. The same one, works too: telnet 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::6c 993 Trying 2607:f8b0

Re: Point-to-point /64

; Arturo, > > Don't put any global scope addresses on it at all. > > Ole > > On 1 Jun 2013, at 22:24, Arturo Servin wrote: > >> >>Got it. >> >>I though it was something different. >> >>Suppose now that I am very stubborn and

Re: Point-to-point /64

I could put a FW to protect the links, that works in some places. Where not, probably I should need to add some ACLs to the router (which I would not be a fan of). Anything else to protect the link? Thanks! .as On 6/1/13 2:46 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-06-01 10:41, Arturo Ser

Re: Point-to-point /64

Thanks Jeroen, comments inline. On 6/1/13 2:09 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-06-01 07:04, Arturo Servin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to ask which measures is people taking to protect p-2-p >> links that are configured with a /64. So far I

Re: Not Listening to the Ops Customer

Kind of. Those were different times. At least us we were not so preoccupied by tracking users, accounting, etc. So a central point to record IP address was not as important as a central port to give IP address. So both solutions would seem useful to me at that time (as I said I wa

  1   2   3   4   5   >