strawman for discussion in Ann Arbor

Hans-Werner Braun hwb at
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
> Hi,
> 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
> 			CIDR
> 			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,
> peter

More information about the NANOG mailing list