Re: [bcop] [BCOP-discuss] eBGP Configuration BCOP - Call for Volunteer SMEs
Hi, Maybe I missed something, was busy to participate this Ripe meeting. Just want to express my will in participating to BGP BCOP. Best Regards /Alex Saroyan Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the info Benno! With that also being a fledgling initiative, there is probably no harm in NANOG moving toward that same goal...Now, merging the documents and determining which best practice is in-fact BEST may become interesting, but that is a problem for the future.
Indeed!
From my perspective: After NANOG 61 we should have a good grasp on who all from this region is willing and able to participate. At that time I suggest that we merge the interested NANOGers with the interested RIPE'rs and form one BGP BCOP cross-regional working group to build a single document which we can both publish (or we can choose one place to publish if that makes more sense)...
I note that the RIPE "IPv6 Helpdesk" BCOP is being written using a similar model, with folks from both regions working together to draft a single document.
$0.02 ~Chris
Bill
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Hi,
With the last RIPE68 meeting, a BGP configuration BCOP proposal was presented by Francios Contat, see https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bcop-tf/.
In the slides, Francios explained their approach: get ISPs on board, definitions, scenarios, good practices, etc. The presentation was a call for interest for others to join. Next is to redefine goals, scope, etc., such that it will become a manageable document. Work to obtain input, review, collect comments will take place in the RIPE Routing Working Group.
The document already available is in French, but Google translate does a good job to obtain an English version.
Best,
Benno Overeinder
Op 21 mei 2014 om 17:35 heeft Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Ahoy There! Over the last few months the NANOG BCOP committee has combed through the NANOG and various other NOG/IETF-Ops mailing lists and have identified a stack reoccurring or pressing questions and concerns which we are using as seeds for our initial BCOP Appeals. One exceptionally frequent line of questions tend to be rooted in what amounts to "eBGP 101/102"(how to turn up and test a peer and potential pitfalls there-in). While there is already a "Public Peering Exchange" BCOP and a draft for "IPv6 Peering" is in the works, it appears that the fundamentals need to be captured and put on display. Although there are already a handful of SMEs on-board, our goal is to define the BEST practices so the more insight we can get into this problem the better! If you are interested in acting as a SME for the "eBGP Configuration BCOP" please let me know, this is your chance to sow your expertise across the internet!
THANKS! Bill Armstrong
P.S. I'll be at NANOG 61 so if you aren't sure about the commitment or have questions about the BCOP process don't hesitate to track me down for a chat!
_______________________________________________
BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
_______________________________________________ BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
-- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
On 22/05/14 08:13, Alex Saroyan wrote:
Hi,
Maybe I missed something, was busy to participate this Ripe meeting. Just want to express my will in participating to BGP BCOP.
Best Regards /Alex Saroyan
Brilliant! We can start forming a group with Francios Contat and see how we can move forward thnx, Jan
I’m a total newbie but (maybe naively) I would like to participate in this also. Mick On 22 May 2014, at 08:22, Jan Zorz - ISOC <zorz@isoc.org> wrote:
On 22/05/14 08:13, Alex Saroyan wrote:
Hi,
Maybe I missed something, was busy to participate this Ripe meeting. Just want to express my will in participating to BGP BCOP.
Best Regards /Alex Saroyan
Brilliant!
We can start forming a group with Francios Contat and see how we can move forward
thnx, Jan
Hi, I would also like to participate as much as my time allows. Am 22.05.2014 08:13, schrieb Alex Saroyan:
Hi,
Maybe I missed something, was busy to participate this Ripe meeting. Just want to express my will in participating to BGP BCOP.
Best Regards /Alex Saroyan
Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the info Benno! With that also being a fledgling initiative, there is probably no harm in NANOG moving toward that same goal...Now, merging the documents and determining which best practice is in-fact BEST may become interesting, but that is a problem for the future. Indeed!
From my perspective: After NANOG 61 we should have a good grasp on who all from this region is willing and able to participate. At that time I suggest that we merge the interested NANOGers with the interested RIPE'rs and form one BGP BCOP cross-regional working group to build a single document which we can both publish (or we can choose one place to publish if that makes more sense)...
I note that the RIPE "IPv6 Helpdesk" BCOP is being written using a similar model, with folks from both regions working together to draft a single document.
$0.02 ~Chris
Bill
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Hi,
With the last RIPE68 meeting, a BGP configuration BCOP proposal was presented by Francios Contat, see https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bcop-tf/.
In the slides, Francios explained their approach: get ISPs on board, definitions, scenarios, good practices, etc. The presentation was a call for interest for others to join. Next is to redefine goals, scope, etc., such that it will become a manageable document. Work to obtain input, review, collect comments will take place in the RIPE Routing Working Group.
The document already available is in French, but Google translate does a good job to obtain an English version.
Best,
Benno Overeinder
Op 21 mei 2014 om 17:35 heeft Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Ahoy There! Over the last few months the NANOG BCOP committee has combed through the NANOG and various other NOG/IETF-Ops mailing lists and have identified a stack reoccurring or pressing questions and concerns which we are using as seeds for our initial BCOP Appeals. One exceptionally frequent line of questions tend to be rooted in what amounts to "eBGP 101/102"(how to turn up and test a peer and potential pitfalls there-in). While there is already a "Public Peering Exchange" BCOP and a draft for "IPv6 Peering" is in the works, it appears that the fundamentals need to be captured and put on display. Although there are already a handful of SMEs on-board, our goal is to define the BEST practices so the more insight we can get into this problem the better! If you are interested in acting as a SME for the "eBGP Configuration BCOP" please let me know, this is your chance to sow your expertise across the internet!
THANKS! Bill Armstrong
P.S. I'll be at NANOG 61 so if you aren't sure about the commitment or have questions about the BCOP process don't hesitate to track me down for a chat!
_______________________________________________
BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
_______________________________________________ BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
-- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
+1! Me, too! -- Sebastian Becker sb@lab.dtag.de Am 22.05.2014 um 11:22 schrieb Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>:
Hi,
I would also like to participate as much as my time allows.
Am 22.05.2014 08:13, schrieb Alex Saroyan:
Hi,
Maybe I missed something, was busy to participate this Ripe meeting. Just want to express my will in participating to BGP BCOP.
Best Regards /Alex Saroyan
Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the info Benno! With that also being a fledgling initiative, there is probably no harm in NANOG moving toward that same goal...Now, merging the documents and determining which best practice is in-fact BEST may become interesting, but that is a problem for the future. Indeed!
From my perspective: After NANOG 61 we should have a good grasp on who all from this region is willing and able to participate. At that time I suggest that we merge the interested NANOGers with the interested RIPE'rs and form one BGP BCOP cross-regional working group to build a single document which we can both publish (or we can choose one place to publish if that makes more sense)...
I note that the RIPE "IPv6 Helpdesk" BCOP is being written using a similar model, with folks from both regions working together to draft a single document.
$0.02 ~Chris
Bill
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Hi,
With the last RIPE68 meeting, a BGP configuration BCOP proposal was presented by Francios Contat, see https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bcop-tf/.
In the slides, Francios explained their approach: get ISPs on board, definitions, scenarios, good practices, etc. The presentation was a call for interest for others to join. Next is to redefine goals, scope, etc., such that it will become a manageable document. Work to obtain input, review, collect comments will take place in the RIPE Routing Working Group.
The document already available is in French, but Google translate does a good job to obtain an English version.
Best,
Benno Overeinder
Op 21 mei 2014 om 17:35 heeft Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Ahoy There! Over the last few months the NANOG BCOP committee has combed through the NANOG and various other NOG/IETF-Ops mailing lists and have identified a stack reoccurring or pressing questions and concerns which we are using as seeds for our initial BCOP Appeals. One exceptionally frequent line of questions tend to be rooted in what amounts to "eBGP 101/102"(how to turn up and test a peer and potential pitfalls there-in). While there is already a "Public Peering Exchange" BCOP and a draft for "IPv6 Peering" is in the works, it appears that the fundamentals need to be captured and put on display. Although there are already a handful of SMEs on-board, our goal is to define the BEST practices so the more insight we can get into this problem the better! If you are interested in acting as a SME for the "eBGP Configuration BCOP" please let me know, this is your chance to sow your expertise across the internet!
THANKS! Bill Armstrong
P.S. I'll be at NANOG 61 so if you aren't sure about the commitment or have questions about the BCOP process don't hesitate to track me down for a chat!
_______________________________________________
BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
_______________________________________________ BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
-- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
############################################## # Mail Account for technical purposes only ##############################################
On 22/05/2014, at 11.22, Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de> wrote:
Hi,
I would also like to participate as much as my time allows.
+1 We are also a very small organization, so we can share a lot of our internal docs/templates without restrictions. Best regards Henrik
Am 22.05.2014 08:13, schrieb Alex Saroyan:
Hi,
Maybe I missed something, was busy to participate this Ripe meeting. Just want to express my will in participating to BGP BCOP.
Best Regards /Alex Saroyan
Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the info Benno! With that also being a fledgling initiative, there is probably no harm in NANOG moving toward that same goal...Now, merging the documents and determining which best practice is in-fact BEST may become interesting, but that is a problem for the future. Indeed!
From my perspective: After NANOG 61 we should have a good grasp on who all from this region is willing and able to participate. At that time I suggest that we merge the interested NANOGers with the interested RIPE'rs and form one BGP BCOP cross-regional working group to build a single document which we can both publish (or we can choose one place to publish if that makes more sense)...
I note that the RIPE "IPv6 Helpdesk" BCOP is being written using a similar model, with folks from both regions working together to draft a single document.
$0.02 ~Chris
Bill
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Hi,
With the last RIPE68 meeting, a BGP configuration BCOP proposal was presented by Francios Contat, see https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bcop-tf/.
In the slides, Francios explained their approach: get ISPs on board, definitions, scenarios, good practices, etc. The presentation was a call for interest for others to join. Next is to redefine goals, scope, etc., such that it will become a manageable document. Work to obtain input, review, collect comments will take place in the RIPE Routing Working Group.
The document already available is in French, but Google translate does a good job to obtain an English version.
Best,
Benno Overeinder
Op 21 mei 2014 om 17:35 heeft Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Ahoy There! Over the last few months the NANOG BCOP committee has combed through the NANOG and various other NOG/IETF-Ops mailing lists and have identified a stack reoccurring or pressing questions and concerns which we are using as seeds for our initial BCOP Appeals. One exceptionally frequent line of questions tend to be rooted in what amounts to "eBGP 101/102"(how to turn up and test a peer and potential pitfalls there-in). While there is already a "Public Peering Exchange" BCOP and a draft for "IPv6 Peering" is in the works, it appears that the fundamentals need to be captured and put on display. Although there are already a handful of SMEs on-board, our goal is to define the BEST practices so the more insight we can get into this problem the better! If you are interested in acting as a SME for the "eBGP Configuration BCOP" please let me know, this is your chance to sow your expertise across the internet!
THANKS! Bill Armstrong
P.S. I'll be at NANOG 61 so if you aren't sure about the commitment or have questions about the BCOP process don't hesitate to track me down for a chat!
_______________________________________________
BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
_______________________________________________ BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
-- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
-- Henrik Lund Kramshøj, Follower of the Great Way of Unix internet samurai cand.scient CISSP hlk@kramse.org hlk@solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler
Thanks all. This is really great! I will make sure Francois and his colleagues will be in the loop (see CC). I guess there will be coordination between the NANOG, JANOG, and RIPE BCOP activities (Chris, Jan, and others?). It would be great to learn from each other from different regions. For the RIPE area, we need to make a plan, some time lines, people involved, etc., such that we coordinate activities and monitor some progress. I will not contribute to the document though, that is up to you, but I can help you out in facilitating the activities, coordination, etc. Just a helping hand. Cheers, -- Benno On 22/05/14 11:31, Henrik Lund Kramshøj wrote:
On 22/05/2014, at 11.22, Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de> wrote:
Hi,
I would also like to participate as much as my time allows.
+1
We are also a very small organization, so we can share a lot of our internal docs/templates without restrictions.
Best regards
Henrik
Am 22.05.2014 08:13, schrieb Alex Saroyan:
Hi,
Maybe I missed something, was busy to participate this Ripe meeting. Just want to express my will in participating to BGP BCOP.
Best Regards /Alex Saroyan
Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the info Benno! With that also being a fledgling initiative, there is probably no harm in NANOG moving toward that same goal...Now, merging the documents and determining which best practice is in-fact BEST may become interesting, but that is a problem for the future. Indeed!
From my perspective: After NANOG 61 we should have a good grasp on who all from this region is willing and able to participate. At that time I suggest that we merge the interested NANOGers with the interested RIPE'rs and form one BGP BCOP cross-regional working group to build a single document which we can both publish (or we can choose one place to publish if that makes more sense)...
I note that the RIPE "IPv6 Helpdesk" BCOP is being written using a similar model, with folks from both regions working together to draft a single document.
$0.02 ~Chris
Bill
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Hi,
With the last RIPE68 meeting, a BGP configuration BCOP proposal was presented by Francios Contat, see https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bcop-tf/.
In the slides, Francios explained their approach: get ISPs on board, definitions, scenarios, good practices, etc. The presentation was a call for interest for others to join. Next is to redefine goals, scope, etc., such that it will become a manageable document. Work to obtain input, review, collect comments will take place in the RIPE Routing Working Group.
The document already available is in French, but Google translate does a good job to obtain an English version.
Best,
Benno Overeinder
Op 21 mei 2014 om 17:35 heeft Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Ahoy There! Over the last few months the NANOG BCOP committee has combed through the NANOG and various other NOG/IETF-Ops mailing lists and have identified a stack reoccurring or pressing questions and concerns which we are using as seeds for our initial BCOP Appeals. One exceptionally frequent line of questions tend to be rooted in what amounts to "eBGP 101/102"(how to turn up and test a peer and potential pitfalls there-in). While there is already a "Public Peering Exchange" BCOP and a draft for "IPv6 Peering" is in the works, it appears that the fundamentals need to be captured and put on display. Although there are already a handful of SMEs on-board, our goal is to define the BEST practices so the more insight we can get into this problem the better! If you are interested in acting as a SME for the "eBGP Configuration BCOP" please let me know, this is your chance to sow your expertise across the internet!
THANKS! Bill Armstrong
P.S. I'll be at NANOG 61 so if you aren't sure about the commitment or have questions about the BCOP process don't hesitate to track me down for a chat!
_______________________________________________
BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
_______________________________________________ BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
-- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
-- Henrik Lund Kramshøj, Follower of the Great Way of Unix internet samurai cand.scient CISSP hlk@kramse.org hlk@solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler
-- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
I am also interested in participating and sharing my experience. Regards, Li Li -----Original Message----- From: BCOP [mailto:bcop-bounces@mailman.nanog.org] On Behalf Of Benno Overeinder Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:06 AM To: Henrik Lund Kramshøj; Karsten Thomann Cc: Markus de Brün; Francois C; Alex Saroyan; bcop@mailman.nanog.org; Bill Armstrong; Guillaume Valadon; bcop@ripe.net Subject: Re: [BCOP-discuss] [bcop] eBGP Configuration BCOP - Call for Volunteer SMEs Thanks all. This is really great! I will make sure Francois and his colleagues will be in the loop (see CC). I guess there will be coordination between the NANOG, JANOG, and RIPE BCOP activities (Chris, Jan, and others?). It would be great to learn from each other from different regions. For the RIPE area, we need to make a plan, some time lines, people involved, etc., such that we coordinate activities and monitor some progress. I will not contribute to the document though, that is up to you, but I can help you out in facilitating the activities, coordination, etc. Just a helping hand. Cheers, -- Benno On 22/05/14 11:31, Henrik Lund Kramshøj wrote:
On 22/05/2014, at 11.22, Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de> wrote:
Hi,
I would also like to participate as much as my time allows.
+1
We are also a very small organization, so we can share a lot of our internal docs/templates without restrictions.
Best regards
Henrik
Am 22.05.2014 08:13, schrieb Alex Saroyan:
Hi,
Maybe I missed something, was busy to participate this Ripe meeting. Just want to express my will in participating to BGP BCOP.
Best Regards /Alex Saroyan
Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the info Benno! With that also being a fledgling initiative, there is probably no harm in NANOG moving toward that same goal...Now, merging the documents and determining which best practice is in-fact BEST may become interesting, but that is a problem for the future. Indeed!
From my perspective: After NANOG 61 we should have a good grasp on who all from this region is willing and able to participate. At that time I suggest that we merge the interested NANOGers with the interested RIPE'rs and form one BGP BCOP cross-regional working group to build a single document which we can both publish (or we can choose one place to publish if that makes more sense)...
I note that the RIPE "IPv6 Helpdesk" BCOP is being written using a similar model, with folks from both regions working together to draft a single document.
$0.02 ~Chris
Bill
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Hi,
With the last RIPE68 meeting, a BGP configuration BCOP proposal was presented by Francios Contat, see https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bcop-tf/.
In the slides, Francios explained their approach: get ISPs on board, definitions, scenarios, good practices, etc. The presentation was a call for interest for others to join. Next is to redefine goals, scope, etc., such that it will become a manageable document. Work to obtain input, review, collect comments will take place in the RIPE Routing Working Group.
The document already available is in French, but Google translate does a good job to obtain an English version.
Best,
Benno Overeinder
Op 21 mei 2014 om 17:35 heeft Bill Armstrong <wrarmstrong@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Ahoy There! Over the last few months the NANOG BCOP committee has combed through the NANOG and various other NOG/IETF-Ops mailing lists and have identified a stack reoccurring or pressing questions and concerns which we are using as seeds for our initial BCOP Appeals. One exceptionally frequent line of questions tend to be rooted in what amounts to "eBGP 101/102"(how to turn up and test a peer and potential pitfalls there-in). While there is already a "Public Peering Exchange" BCOP and a draft for "IPv6 Peering" is in the works, it appears that the fundamentals need to be captured and put on display. Although there are already a handful of SMEs on-board, our goal is to define the BEST practices so the more insight we can get into this problem the better! If you are interested in acting as a SME for the "eBGP Configuration BCOP" please let me know, this is your chance to sow your expertise across the internet!
THANKS! Bill Armstrong
P.S. I'll be at NANOG 61 so if you aren't sure about the commitment or have questions about the BCOP process don't hesitate to track me down for a chat!
_______________________________________________
BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
_______________________________________________ BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
-- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
-- Henrik Lund Kramshøj, Follower of the Great Way of Unix internet samurai cand.scient CISSP hlk@kramse.org hlk@solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler
-- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ _______________________________________________ BCOP mailing list BCOP@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
participants (8)
-
Alex Saroyan -
Benno Overeinder -
Henrik Lund Kramshøj -
Jan Zorz - ISOC -
Karsten Thomann -
Li Li -
Mick O'Donovan -
Sebastian Becker