Thanks for the information to have a better decision.
I am Nomcom-eligible and you can add me to the signature list.
/Arturo Servin
On 04/11/2012 12:15, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
> Thanks for extra info.
>
> You can add me to the list who sign the request f
So basically the IETF is roaming most of the time in North America,
sometimes in Europe and once in a while in Asia. Is that how the IETF
thinks about the global development of Internet standards?
No wonder why some countries in Africa and Latin America are
approaching ITU.
SM
On 09/11/2012 19:42, SM wrote:
> Hi Arturo,
> At 15:26 09-11-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> So basically the IETF is roaming most of the time in North
>> America,
>> sometimes in Europe and once in a while in Asia. Is that how the IETF
>> thinks about the
do not care.
Regards,
as
On 09/11/2012 19:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Arturo,
>
> On 09/11/2012 23:26, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> So basically the IETF is roaming most of the time in North America,
>> sometimes in Europe and once in a while in Asia. Is that how the IET
Randy,
It's not bitching, it self criticism. I think that the IETF thinks
that it is very open but in reality it could do better.
And about your suggestion, it is my todo list.
Regards,
as
On 10/11/2012 06:14, Randy Bush wrote:
> arturo,
>
> many of us have the message that you think th
Bob,
Nice to hear that.
I will send off-list to the IAOC some venues, possible hosts and people
that could help in finding a good place.
Regards
as
On 10/11/2012 13:26, Bob Hinden wrote:
> The IAOC site team is planning to visit several potential venues early next
> year in Lat
re now.
Regards,
as
On 10/11/2012 14:51, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 5:35 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> It's not bitching, it self criticism. I think that the IETF thinks
>> that it is very open but in reality it could do better.
>
> I'm not sure
v 09, 2012 at 08:00:19PM -0500, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> People is asking how to evolve the IETF, well, one possibility is to
>> start thinking global and to reach more people outside the common venues.
>
> Another is to not have any (physical) meetings, ever. I've he
Dave
On 14/11/2012 17:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/14/2012 9:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> (Another aspect beyond capturing regular attendees, of course, is
>> gaining local mindshare and relevance.
>
> I believe I understand the concepts that are meant by such language. But
> I do no
Melinda,
On 14/11/2012 23:55, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 11/14/12 4:23 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> Agree. But also people (and perhaps organisations, that also are
>> serious participants) in Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia
>> has less income than their
gards,
as
On 15/11/2012 00:58, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 11/14/12 5:55 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> My opinion is that being more open and international make us a better
>> standarization body and today the IETF is not doing enough.
>
> We're a bunch of nerds, and I
linda Shore wrote:
> On 11/14/12 6:39 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> Going to other places would help bring people from other backgrounds,
>> different ideas, new ways of thinking, break paradigms, etc. People that
>> in other way would find difficult to participate in the IE
Luigi,
On 15/11/2012 12:33, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>
> On 15 Nov. 2012, at 10:43 , Sander Steffann wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I have to ask, who can request an netblock from this address space and
>>> from where?
>>> I might be blind but I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere.
>>
>> Good question. Wil
Dino,
But who are the registries? The RIRs? Large ISPs? IANA? I think you
should specify clearly either: what a registry is or that is not defined
yet.
Point taken on "This draft is purely a draft to REQUEST space. There
will need to be a deployment guide on how to allocate EIDs,
They are doing a great job, but I wouldn't said that all of that is on
IETF behalf. They are there because that is ISOC's mission, not to
represent us in the majority of their work.
If we want representation, we need to do it ourselves. ISOC would
support us, I am sure, but we nee
Joel,
I think that George raised a very valid concern and he explained very
well the RIR machinery to perform address allocation.
Saying that "it is just PI" simple does not help.
As an example of our concerns (or at least mine), the policy to
allocate PI in lacnic is:
"
On 15/11/2012 21:01, John R Levine wrote:
>> Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
>> far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
>> be more open.
>
> The IAOC has often noted that holding meetings in more exotic places is
> c
Dino,
+1 In LACNIC, may 6th to 10th 2013 in Medellin Colombia.
I am not the policiy guy but I can get you time in the technical and
policy plenaries and assit you in the discussion.
Also, if you plan to write some text about the allocation mechanics let
me know, I will be
On 16/11/2012 01:27, John Levine wrote:
>> Shall we move on?
>
> Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
I wouldn't say that we agreed on that.
We do not want to look how to pay the extra cost, we are simply not
interested. We agree on this.
In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate criteria:
- Accept an I+D for the merely fact to have a more structured
discussion in the WG.
Regards
::as
On 02/12/2012 16:47, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/28/2012 8:00 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> I led the discussi
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
Regards,
as
On 02/12/2012 18:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 12/2/12 11:18 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>
>> In Section 2.1, I would add in specificall
Well, I think we shouldn't.
I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
are willing to support it as RFC.
/as
On 02/12/2012 20:36, SM wrote:
> At 12:25 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> So it is ok to have bad ideas as
On 02/12/2012 21:50, Randy Bush wrote:
>> So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
>> just to have a structured discussion?
> and so that the chairs have the option of changing editorship to turn
> them into good ideas.
>
> randy
That's is true. But I would prefer
On 02/12/2012 21:52, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
>> are willing to support it as RFC.
> i thought that was wglc. but i am a dinosaur.
>
> randy
What I meant is that accepting the I+D as WG document clears the
path of the bad idea
Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
"1.1. What is a Working Group Draft?
Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
Internet Drafts (I-D). Working groups use this mechanism for
producing their official output, per Section 7.2 of
What are "those"?
Without the context it is impossible to guess, at least for me.
.as
On 04/12/2012 23:34, Scott Brim wrote:
> Those are all endpoint implementation problems and thus not subject to
> IETF standardization :-)
>
I agree that RFC2050 is not completely valid with the current state of
the Internet, but making it historic will not solve any problem IMHO.
Before making 2050 historic, we should think what is and what is not
valid according with today's internet, what the technical community
nee
Very good initiative.
Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace
new tools to collaborate.
Regards,
as
On 22/02/2013 20:35, IETF Chair wrote:
> Jari has created a blog as an experiment to see if would be possible to
> provide periodic status reports
-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/23/2013 07:38 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>
>> Very good initiative.
>>
>> Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new
>> tools to collaborate.
>
> Let's not. Collaboration based on softwar
/2013 14:52, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> On 02/24/2013 05:21 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>> Why not?
>
>> I, my organization and many more (included ISOC) have found them
>> very useful for outreach activities. I do not see why the IETF
>> shouldn't. Plea
at for outreach,
> and when you're doing outreach, you have to go where the people
> are. In my defense, though, I was advertising a talk wherein I
> discussed why it's a bad idea to rely on such closed platforms. :)
> )
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> On Feb 2
Fred,
I am not convinced that social nets (proprietary or not) are yet a good
tool to do IETF work. They are good to communicate one-way and some
informal two-ways, but that's all (at least for now)
What I had in mind was something very simple such that the IETF chair
could do is
It appears that the path that this discussion has followed has proven
your point.
/as
On 25/02/2013 23:31, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
> On 2/25/13, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> Fred,
>>
>> I am not convinced that social nets (proprietary or not) are yet a good
&g
Hi,
I have been reading the comments in the list and although I am not
making a specific reply to any message I would like to make some comments.
So far I have read "I agree we need some diversity" or "I agree that
more diversity is better". Also I have read "Please no quotas", "d
On 11/03/2013 14:25, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> On 3/11/2013 1:03 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> On 03/11/2013 01:43 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>> My opinion is that we agree we have a situation that we should
>>> improve,
>>> but also we shouldn't focus
OK, I'll bite.
I would by no means use the word "stupider", but I do think that a
group of females and males would take better decisions that a group of
only-males or only-females.
/as
On 11/03/2013 18:54, Dan Harkins wrote:
> In other words, the statement that gender and racial
Along the thread there have been great ideas on how to do mentoring to
newcomers; I just want to point out something.
Mentoring is not only about WG chairs, IAB and IESG, it seems to me
that we want to pass the problem to them. My opinion is that anyone that
has come to the IETF t
m about what they're interested in, and to ask them if they'd like to be
> considered the next time we're looking for an editor.
>
> On Mar 15, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Arturo Servin
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Along the thread there have been great ideas on how to
On 3/16/13 4:54 PM, James Galvin wrote:
>
>
>
> It seems to me that the real question here is what is the role of the
> confirming body? Should its role be biased towards a review (however
> deep) of the work of the NOMCOM or should its role be biased towards
> ensuring the NOMCOM has follow
I looked at the WG's agendas of some meetings that I missed and none
have a link to the meetecho's recording (they have the audio and
jabber), which was odd to me (or I had very bad luck to miss the only
non-meetcho meetings.)
Then I found the recordings at:
http://www.ietf.org/m
Policy Manual / v1.10 - 13/08/2012
1. Definitions
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-1
2. IPv4 Addresses
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-2
etc ...
And it is not administration/control, it is also about service
(language, timezones, etc.)
/as
Yes and no.
I would get rid of all the dots, possible yes.
The new attendee tag, not sure. May change it for a dot.
The tags is useful to identify new people and help. A mentor tag or dot
would be useful to people for not thinking that you are a weirdo trying
to
As I mentioned in the mic during the IAB-sponsored Discussion of WCIT,
during the week I had the opportunity to talk and interact to some of
the policy fellows invited by ISOC (in general were people from the
national regulator or from the ministry of telecommunications -AFAIK-).
I also ha
I interpret it as anybody.
ISPs, cctlds, governments, gtlds, IETF, RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, you, me.
/as
On 3/20/13 4:43 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
>
>> > Over the years, the Internet Numbers Registry System has developed
On 3/20/13 12:17 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On 03/20/13 15:16, Jorge Contreras allegedly wrote:
>> I would strongly recommend that legal counsel be consulted before any
>> such "list" is produced or used by IETF/IESG/Nomcom.
>
> Or don't generate it at all. Trying to have a complete list of human
I have gave some feedback to some I+D authors, I have commented I+Ds
on emailing lists, etc. but never with any expectation of being thanked
by and ack in the I+D or even to include my comments if those are not
supported by the authors or the WG. My only expectation to participate
in the
On 4/10/13 7:55 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> There seems to be a faction that feel that 15 years ago someone once
>>> blacklisted them and caused them some inconvenience, therefore all
>>> DNSBLs suck forever. I could say similar things about buggy PC
>>> implementations of TCP/IP, but I think a f
Somebody point me to see that the date of the post in circleid is April
1st ...
:)
-as
On 4/11/13 11:17 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>
> On 4/10/13 7:55 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>> There seems to be a faction that feel that 15 years ago someone once
>>>
I see no harm in including these type of question as optional.
Personally I do not care if it were mandatory but I think that the most
sensible thing to do is to add it as optional.
It would be also good to see the complete set of questions.
So, I support.
Regards,
as
On 4/11/13 1:00 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> if you do add questions about diversity, please also add
> the following questions.
Please no.
This is about the registration form, not a survey.
.as
r example are simply made available publically and there
>> are not also other stats like the ones i asked for, then the effort will just
>> reinforce bogus statistical claims.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:33:21PM -0300, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>>
>>>
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was followed
and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it
was successfully reviewed by the Gen-ART. If it wasn't then this
particular process sho
On 4/12/13 4:32 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
>> change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
>> in our process because that me
On 4/12/13 4:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with
> review is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG
> document, that may not be bad, but I think having only one review or
> comment (excluding authors) within a WGLC
On 4/12/13 5:52 PM, t.p. wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Arturo Servin"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
>>
>> Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
>>
>> The IESG should be there to attest that the IET
On 4/12/13 8:55 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> SM wrote:
>>
>> Ted Lemon wrote:
>>>
>>> So in fact you don't need to put some percentage of white males on
>>> the IESG, the IAB or the IAOC to make me happy. I want people on
>>> these bodies who feel strongly about open standards, rough consensus
>>
This is very good news. If done, it would show how the IETF is evolving
and adapting to this new world that it is own creation "the Internet"
has make us live in.
Regards,
as
On 5/23/13 3:30 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Never been to Buenos Aires - but it sounds like a great idea. I know
> t
,
as
On 5/23/13 6:47 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Arturo Servin
> wrote:
>>
>> This is very good news. If done, it would show how the IETF is
>> evolving
>> and adapting to this new world that it is own creation "t
On 5/24/13 3:05 AM, SM wrote:
> "Just meeting in some place does not bring too many new participants,
>at least not in a lasting manner. But combined with some other actions,
>this may be possible. Are there specific companies or research teams
> that
>we could reach out to, and w
Where are you flying from?
There are direct flights from Miami, Dallas, Toronto, Washington and
other hubs to Buenos Aires.
Regards,
as
On 5/24/13 11:12 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>> "The" == The IAOC writes:
> The> The venues are in Buenos Aires. They meet
I have been lurking IETF for many years, but it was only after I went
to my first meeting that I really understood how the IETF worked and how
to really participate.
After that meeting I started to send comments, read drafts, writing
some initial stuff and arguing. Before that mee
Depending on how the IETF in BA is scheduled, it may be possible or not
to make it before or after of a regional meeting such as LACNIC, LACTLD
or LACNOG.
I guess the best bet is for the third meeting of the year (IETF is
around the beginning of November, LACNOG/LACNIC are around
John,
Good summary.
I would add a "steep learning-curve" to start participating. It takes
time to get conformable in participating in mailing list and reviewing drafts
for I think two reasons. One is to get know how the IETF works, and another to
catch-up in knowing the topic i
as
On 27 May 2013, at 09:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/27/2013 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.
>
>
> I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea. It could be interesting to try to
> formulate a serious
But also remember, writing I+D is just part of the equation. We also
need reviewers and comments.
Regards,
as
On 5/27/13 7:51 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun
> wrote:
>> Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
>> addin
On 5/27/13 11:15 AM, SM wrote:
>
> Joel Jaeggli mentioned that a regional NOG is not fertile ground for new
> IETF participants. Is LACNOG fertile ground for new IETF participants?
I guess so.
We have doing some efforts in the past and we are planning to do more.
You will see
On 5/27/13 12:41 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that have
> interest to participate in this type of international forums and processes
> SHOULD learn English.
>
> -Jorge
>
Another barrier.
Anyway we are talking a
The idea that I had for this remote participation hub was to "break the
ice". I saw no problem to provide some facilities to newcomers are more
comfortable. Perhaps, later that would encourage them to improve their
English and participate.
But these are just ideas.
.as
On 5/27/
Hi,
I have never been a wg chair but I think that this document may be very
useful and helpful (at least it clarifies many things to me).
I have some comments:
- To me Section 2.1 (Formal Steps) looks better after 2.2 (Criteria of
Adoption).
- Section 2.2 does not set up a crite
Juliao,
I went to all this sites (besides BBC Brazil) and searched for
Argentina. There were some news about economy, the lady President, some
about the senate, commercial balance but none saying "huu, scary
Argentina, do not go there".
Regards,
as
On 5/28/13 7:13 PM, Juliao Braga wrote
!) would not be
> recommended. But who should tell us about the true cenary would be our
> Argentine friends.
>
> Juliao
On 5/28/13 8:30 PM, Juliao Braga wrote:
> Arturo,
>
> Who said "...huu, scary Argentina, do not go there"? Where? In this list?
>
>
>
gards,
>
> Juliao
>
> Em 28/05/2013 20:36, Arturo Servin escreveu:
>>
>> "not be recommended" sounds to me it sounded like "huu, scary, do not
>> go there".
>>
>>
>> /as
Perhaps not. Buenos Aires is also a big hub of technology in Latin
America. In addition as it was mentioned it relatively close from Sao
Paulo, Montevideo and Santiago. Also there are direct flights from other
major cities in Peru and Colombia.
Going to Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Me
On 5/28/13 11:47 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 5/28/13 6:27 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> Going to Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Mexico City or Santiago will always
>> split audiences as these are the major tech hubs in the region (also add
>> Bogota, Lima, San Jose and other
You can always include add some text from this document in the TAO and
add a reference so anybody wanting to know more could follow.
Also, to me, this I+D also targets new and not so new WG chairs, not
just new comers.
.as
On 5/29/13 2:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
>
On 5/31/13 9:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> I don't know what the smiley is supposed to connote, but the IETF
> responds to changes in the community by changing its engineering goals
> and the problems it works on.
I would add that the IETF should change the way we solve those problems
as an
Masataka,
On 6/1/13 6:51 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
>> early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea, and remains a good idea for
>> "dumb" devices that only need to know their network and gateway
No, I meant a table of static ip addresses (possibly it was in excel,
db2, or any other old database) for each host so we do not configured
the same IP to two or three different hosts. It was a nightmare.
With IPX, AT address assignment was automatic. No DHCP in those old
times.
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
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
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
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
Ignore!
Wrong list. Jetlag.
my apologies,
as
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
And b.
And probably it is too much effort for something that will go away
(probably sooner that we expect) with the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses for each
ISP's customer (6to4 does not work with NATs, and they are here).
-as
On 3 Jul 2011, at 11:40, Keith Moore wrote:
>> > I t
>>
>>
>> And b.
>>
>> And probably it is too much effort for something that will go away
>> (probably sooner that we expect) with the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses for
>> each ISP's customer (6to4 does not work with NATs, and they are here).
>
> It's clearly inappropriate for operat
On 10 Feb 2012, at 22:12, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>>
>
> Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, who
> do you suggest will?
I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right?
> My bet is that no one is willing to drop the
> billions of dollars requi
I was reviewing the dates for future IETF meetings (nothing in
particular, just curiosity) and I found that IETF 92 is slightly different:
March 2015 - 92nd IETF
March 22-27, 2015
Host: TBD
Location: Americas
IETF 96nd states "North America"
So I wonder if finally the
I do. May be you do not leave far enough from IETF venues.
Regards
as
On 6 Aug 2012, at 11:18, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the
> hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF
>
Live, not "leave".
I have some jetlag from my almost 30 hours from Vancouver to Montevideo.
=D
as
On 6 Aug 2012, at 21:38, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> I do. May be you do not leave far enough from IETF venues.
>
>
> Regards
> as
>
>
Brian,
Yes, that is true, renumbering is a fact and we may be doing it
eventually but hopefully not frequently.
Needing to renumbering every time that a large enterprise changes
internet provider (frequently, every 2 or 3 years perhaps) it is simply not
practical today and poss
If I refuse to use NAT (or NPTv6 for the sensible)?
Any other option besides PI?
/as
On 7 Aug 2012, at 17:01, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 00:46, Martin Rex wrote:
>> IPv6 PA prefixes result in that awkward renumbering.
>> Avoiding the renumbering implies provider indepen
Besides where to to repeat, some new places to go that are cheaper and
closer to me (and possible to others, and perhaps not so bad to many).
Sao Paolo, Mexico City, Miami, Madrid, Cancun, Santiago, Panama, San
Juan
Regards,
as
On 9 Aug 2012, at 12:22, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
