[Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[William Norton]

On Feb 25, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Philip Smith wrote:

> :

>
> I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have
> been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary
> session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The
> organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their  
> content in
> conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running  
> BoFs at
> NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step.
>>

Philip -

I agree mostly with what you have said, but the "conjunction with the  
APRICOT PC" is a bit looser than I think you imply. Here is what I see.

For the last bunch of years I have been leading the APRICOT peering  
tracks, typically a half day, once a full day, and this year we  
lengthened it to 1.5 days and called it the APRICOT Peering Forum.

At APRICOT, as with NANOG, there is a CFP.  I try and put in a plea in  
there specifically for Peering Coordinators/Network Engineers to talk  
about their peering experiences, buildouts, lessons learned,  
interesting traffic patterns, etc. across Asia and into the US.  I do  
this to bring in those doing or involved in peering to the forum.   
Each year there are about zero talks submitted to the peering track or  
forum through this process.

So I spend three months emailing, cold calling, IRCing, and  
encouraging  folks that I see at other conferences to share the  
interesting stories that they shared with me in the hallways at these  
events, at the APRICOT Peering Forum.  Months before APRICOT they are  
more often interested but non committal, not sure if they will attend  
APRICOT. Typically in the last month or so, folks decide to attend and  
I work with them directly to share a topic and abstract and talk for  
the peering forum agenda. I've been using google docs as the  
repository for the agenda, and have kept Gaurab (APRICOT Program  
Chair) in the loop as I go through the panic("we don't have enough  
topics/speakers!!!!"), logistics issues("speakers cancelled, got sick,  
etc"), all the way through to the "ok, phew, we have a good agenda"  
cycle.

Maybe behind the scenes the program chair has shared/reviewed/ 
discussed the peering forum agenda with others, but my perception, as  
with the NANOG Peering BOF the last few years, is that it has been  
more analogous to "Here is a 90 minute block for the Peering  
community, Bill - do the right thing."  So, more of a hands off  
approach than 'conjunction with the APRICOT PC' is my perception.

As for the Peering BOF XVII thing...

Every peering BOF we try something new. Successes include the great  
debates.  Failures or Controversial issues include the transit surveys  
and the attempted humor in the "Peering News".  We make mistakes and  
learn, and try not to make the same mistake twice.  By trying  
something new each time, we will of course stumble upon corresponding  
successes and failures. That flexibility, informality, last minute  
stuff from the field is what makes the Peering BOF fun.

To me, the nanog-futures discussion is, how should/did this Steering  
Committee/Program Committee apparatus, respond to complaints that  
result from these failures?

If there is to be a change to this very successful part of NANOG, is  
it because it has become a fixture of NANOG? To repair some perceived  
brokenness? To make it better or broader?

What does the community think it should look like?

Bill