strawman for discussion in Ann Arbor
hwb at upeksa.sdsc.edu
Sat Oct 2 15:21:22 UTC 1993
Sounds pretty good to me as well, including the openness and
self-organizing aspect of a group with strong operations/engineering
focus, as Peter outlines, open to all service providers.
>this sounds pretty good
> As many of you have noticed there is an agenda item for the Ann Arbor
> Regional Techs meeting dealing with the future of the regional techs.
> The regional techs is a useful forum for coordinating the US Internet,
> it has participation by most US Internet providers including the
> regional techs, CIX members, ANS, US Federal Network operators, etc.
> Thus in some way, the name "regional-techs" does not do fully reflect
> the membership of the regional-techs mailing list and the attendees of
> the regional-techs meetings. Merit has done an excellent job of
> organizing the regional techs from the beginning, and running the mailing
> list and meetings as a function of the NSFNET project to date.
> It seems to me that the regional techs will continue to exist,
> independant of whatever occurs due to the result of the pending NSFNET
> solicitation and awards. In that spirit I would like to put forward
> the following outline of a strawman proposal:
> Regional Techs relabels itself to US-NOGIN, the US
> Network Operators Group for InterNet.
> (the actual name is subject to change ...)
> US-NOGIN organized in an ad hoc manner. This
> would leave it with the current constiuency and with
> an open "membership"
> Central topics for US-NOGIN:
> Coordination of US NIC functionality
> relationship to top level NIC
> Coordination of US Routing Coordination
> Routing Registries
> Technology Deployment
> Inter Provider coordination
> Info sharing
> Interexchange coordination (e.g. Mae-East, etc.)
> (network operators as customers of NSFNET NAPs)
> Structure of US-NOGIN meetings:
> Organizers of each meeting selected by US-NOGIN, would
> circulate on a meeting by meeting basis, probably
> based on what the pressing issues at that time were.
> Location: try to collocate with other meetings:
> IETF, InterOp, etc.
> Relationship with other organizations:
> Peer with RIPE, etc. as members of a federation which
> constitutes the IEPG.
> Loose (undefined, but recognized) overlapping relationships
> with FEPG, CIX, FARNET, etc.
> Funding -- most costs are carried by membership and
> sponsors of meetings.
> Other operational issues?
> trouble resolution
> NOC to NOC handoff
> operational standards/IETF ORAD activities
> information sharing
> I would welcome any feedback, especially if someone would like to help
> flesh this out.
> cheers and see you in A**2,
More information about the NANOG