I Ar Es,
At least they have received the 2610:30::/32 allocation from ARIN.
Lets see if they how taxing they find IPv6 
Greets,
Jeroen
so.. this is surprising why? the us-gov mandate for ipv6 uptake will mean
lots of us-gov folks will be spinning up justifications that they are a
'service provider' and need a /32... cause they won't accept PA space (or
I don't think they will accept PA space as a long term solution) ...
or I might be smoking crack 
who knows.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jeroen Massar wrote:
I Ar Es,
At least they have received the 2610:30::/32 allocation from ARIN.
Lets see if they how taxing they find IPv6
And who'd have thought they would be such late filers 
[IPv6 whois information for NET6-2001-49C8-1 ]
[whois.arin.net]
OrgName: US Department of the Interior
OrgID: UDI-5
Address: 625 Herndon Parkway
Address: MS 012
City: Herndon
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20170-5416
Country: US
NetRange: 2001:49C8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 -
2001:49C8:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF
CIDR: 2001:49C8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/32
NetName: USDOI
NetHandle: NET6-2001-49C8-1
Parent: NET6-2001-4800-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
Comment:
RegDate: 2005-11-10
Updated: 2005-11-10
Greets,
Jeroen--
OrgName: Internal Revenue Service
OrgID: IRS
Address: 1111 Constitution Ave. NW
City: Washington
StateProv: DC
PostalCode: 20224
Country: USNetRange: 2610:0030:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 -
2610:0030:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF
CIDR: 2610:0030:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/32
NetName: IRSNET6
NetHandle: NET6-2610-30-1
Parent: NET6-2610-1
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.TREAS.GOV
NameServer: NS2.TREAS.GOV
NameServer: NS21.TREAS.GOV
NameServer: NS1.CIS.FED.GOV
Comment:
RegDate: 2006-02-13
Updated: 2006-02-13
- --
A thought I had on the plane last night about the disconnect between the
NANOG and IETF community which leaves protocol development to run open-loop.
Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to
synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a reasonable
distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
This will mean that people who regularly attend both will have overlap
issues, but if one meeting every year or two is joint there is an
opportunity for those who can't justify the extra trips to at least have
some feedback to try and close the loop on protocol design.
Tony
The IETF apparently has some major scheduling problems as it is, because there
are very few venues that can handle the number of people that show up *and*
have the right mix of large rooms and many smaller break-out rooms. Trying to get
it into a hotel opposite a NANOG would just exacerbate the problem.
And there's nothing stopping NANOG types from joining an IETF working group and
participating via e-mail - there's a large number of people who have contributed
to the IETF process and never actually been sighted at an IETF meeting.
I agree that attendance is not required, but it can help some discussions.
Given the logistical differences it would be much easier to schedule NANOG
into a nearby hotel than to try to move the IETF around. For example this
time if NANOG had been a month later it would have been in the same city yet
different hotels. I understand that synchronized meetings it not trivial,
but it is worth considering.
Tony
So, NANOG has worked in the past (eg: ARIN) at joint
meetings at a venue before, perhaps something similar would work.
I find it interesting that NANOG and IETF are both in Dallas
about a month from each other and both parties likely navigated
the logistics issues of connectivity, etc.. for these hotels for
a slightly overlapping audience.
Do people think something like the NANOG-ARIN would work for
NANOG-IETF? That might allow cross-breeding/ROI/whatnot and value to
both communities.
- jared
Of course, there is nothing stopping NANOG or anyone else from collocating their meetings to be near the IETF's (in time or space)... but right now they would have a tough time figuring where that would be
The IETF commits to having its meetings
not collide with certain other meetings, and dates are typically set some years in advance :
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt
Because of the recent reorganization, the IETF meetings are only specified through 2007, but
this will shortly be extended for another few years.
Once set, these date cannot be changed except for force majure. Recently IETF meetings have not been announced too long in advance (this summer's location is still officially TBD on this list, for example). I know that the IAD is scrambling to fill in the "where" part of this list into the future.
Hopefully, in the near future the IAOC and the IAD will have meeting sites planned out 2 years or so in advance.
Maybe, then, a collocation could be discussed.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
The real problem is that people have unrealistic expectations wrt the
IETF. What happened to the "engineering spirit" that dominated the
internet-community before it was invaded by telco-guys in the late 90s?
A couple points:
1. IETF does not and should not innovate.
2. IETF never did, can not, will not and should not be expected to solve
anyone's problem.
Sound bad? Not really. The IETF's role is to preserve and protect
technology for public consumption. If there's a problem, solve it. If
the solution is any good it may have the potential to become a standard
later, but the solution should always come first. There are plenty of
organisations making paper-standards going nowhere. There's enough
people trying to turn the IETF into another useless papermill already.
Today there are IETF-standards in progress for which there exist no
implementation. Not even experimental code. Such standards are most
likely DOA, so why bother?
OTOH, NANOG-people should be more involved in core engineering issues.
Most nanog'ers, with the exception of those representing small companies
which don't separate engineering from operations, belong in the
engineering category anyway. The problem is to convince their L8+ that
their company never will rule the world alone, and that it may be wise
to let their engineers cooperate with competitors on the some of the big
issues.
//per
A thought I had on the plane last night about the disconnect between the
NANOG and IETF community which leaves protocol development to run open-loop.
[Hm, what happened last night that I missed]
I rather thought today's talk (last one in morning) by Randy Bush might have been pushed you to write this ...
Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to
synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a reasonable
distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
You mean like NANOG and IETF both having meeting in Dallas?
This will mean that people who regularly attend both will have overlap
issues
Its difficult enough to make it for one week for conference. Taking two weeks off for two conferences is too much to ask for must of us I think.
, but if one meeting every year or two is joint there is an
opportunity for those who can't justify the extra trips to at
least have some feedback to try and close the loop on protocol design.
I think better way is to have at least one track (from 2nd part of day) at NANOG devoted to IETF related issues. New BOFs that happen at IETF can be
repeated at NANOG plus people from IETF might discuss current milestones
and direction for workgroup of interest to those at NANOG.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I Ar Es,
At least they have received the 2610:30::/32 allocation from ARIN.
Lets see if they how taxing they find IPv6so.. this is surprising why? the us-gov mandate for ipv6 uptake will mean
lots of us-gov folks will be spinning up justifications that they are a
'service provider' and need a /32... cause they won't accept PA space (or
I don't think they will accept PA space as a long term solution) ...or I might be smoking crack
- ------------------
resistance is futile, you will be assimilated
regards,
/virendra
opportunity for those who can't justify the extra trips to at least have
some feedback to try and close the loop on protocol design.
Joint meetings are all well and good but are not necessary for
feedback. NANOG folks can join IETF mailing lists here
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html
and post their feedback. Or, better yet, they can write
their studied opinions in an Internet Draft and submit that
to the IETF. There are guidelines and a checklist here
IETF | Internet-Drafts for those who are willing
to take the time. Note that because this document is
a draft, submitted for discussion and comment, it is not
necessary to be as complete as an RFC. Some drafts that
eventually become RFCs, go through many revisions.
The point is that the IETF is open to receiving feedback,
ideas, opinions, in written form. You don't have to go to
a meeting and argue your case in a room full of hostile
vendors and programmers. A steady stream of Internet drafts
and mailing list comments from operators will probably have
more effect that a few meeting visits.
--Michael Dillon
Funny that shim6 is being mentioned. The corresponding open mic session
at 35 showed how gathering people for 20 minutes of complaining can
effectively replace long, protracted email threads.
There was even unicast chatter about trying to coordinate NOGs with
engineering.
Per, I'd like to take exception with your "exclude small companies"
remark. This thread is about tighter engineering and ops involvement,
so why shoot down those who have the two tightly coupled? Why eschew
people who work both sides of the fence?
Eddy
Funny that shim6 is being mentioned. The corresponding open mic session
at 35 showed how gathering people for 20 minutes of complaining can
effectively replace long, protracted email threads.
and what was the effect in the ietf? zippo.
randy
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:26:47 -0600
From: Randy Bush
and what was the effect in the ietf? zippo.
Exactly. I'm claiming that the meeting was a more effective vehicle
than a mailing list for the group of people involved -- NANOGers. I'm
also suggesting that, by extension, cross-pollination between NANOG and
IETF meetings would be more efficient than simple forays onto "the
other mailing list" (with "other" defined by one's perspective).
Eddy
Agreed. And to be honest, I missed this in my notes from
35 (and the two sets of minutes that we had). While I
can't say authoratively, but I'm willing to wager that
the {MPLS, IPv6, <X>} WG didn't consider this as a
proposal. To that end, I'm happy to help write it up with
whomever wants to for Dallas (or whenever works).
More generally folks, let's solve this problem.
Dave
[snip]
Per, I'd like to take exception with your "exclude small companies"
remark. This thread is about tighter engineering and ops involvement,
so why shoot down those who have the two tightly coupled? Why eschew
people who work both sides of the fence?
Sorry, the following sentence came out all wrong due to last minute
cutnpaste:
Most nanog'ers, with the exception of those
representing small companies which don't
separate engineering from operations, belong
in the engineering category anyway.
...quite the opposite of what I ment to say. Most nanog'ers work in
engineering. The problem is a lack of ops-people turning these
xOG-groups ito xEG-groups instead.
PS! I prefer tight integration of operations and engineering. I'd say
it's good for engineering-staff to do ops-work from time to time (eat
their own dog food;). Organisations that practise job-rotation generally
have the better solutions.
//per
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:14:03 +0100
From: Per Heldal
...quite the opposite of what I ment to say. Most nanog'ers work in
engineering. The problem is a lack of ops-people turning these
xOG-groups ito xEG-groups instead.
Ah. That makes much more sense.
PS! I prefer tight integration of operations and engineering. I'd say
it's good for engineering-staff to do ops-work from time to time (eat
their own dog food;). Organisations that practise job-rotation generally
have the better solutions.
Indeed, or at least so I like to think. Tight integration means fewer
kludges that simply translate to more work for someone else.
e.g., I'm currently working on a project that requires a new protocol.
I'm also the one who must write the code, test, and [initially] keep it
up and running once complete. No shifting the burden "10% easier here,
30% tougher there" going on around here. 
Perhaps what more organizations need is management who can properly
bridge the different camps.
Eddy