Proposed Charter for OpenSource WG
Dear RIPE community members! I hope many of you were able to follow Martin's presentation during today's plenary. For the others I am sending a short summary how this idea emerged and also a text of the proposed charter. We will appreciate any feedback from you. Originally, the open source routing developers of Quagga and BIRD wanted to have a space to meet with their product users and therefore organized two BoFs at the RIPE meetings. Both BoFs where quite successful with reasonable high attendance about fifty people. We had very interesting discussion and live exchange of ideas between open source developers and users. And it helped to improve both mentioned products as some of the requested features were implemented and therefore it also helped some of the participants in their deployments. On those BoFs an idea of forming RIPE WG emerged. However if was felt that to focus only on routing daemon software would be to narrow. So the idea was modified to create a working group discussing all open source project relevant to RIPE community. This proposed working group charter follows: --- The aim of the Open Source Working Group is to foster discussion among developers, ISPs and other RIPE community members about Open Source projects related to the RIPE community. The working group believes into the future benefits of Open Source in the community and regularly discusses new features and advices on developments on selected projects. The idea of this WG is really focused on open coordination and feedback between developers of Open Source Software and the RIPE community. We want to sustain a platform where developers from a project can present recent updates, discuss their plans and get feedback on their work. We do want to limit the coverage on projects related and of interest to the RIPE community. Example of Open Source projects which we believe are a good fit for the group are Routing products like Bird, Quagga, OpenBGPd, XORP and other projects relevant to the community like DHCP, Network Management tools like RRDtool, Ntop or Nagios. --- To test if this idea might work, we propose to have yet another one BoF during the next RIPE run similarly as a regular WG session. And in case of success we would propose a formation of a new WG. Thank you for you comments! Martin Winter and Ondrej Filip
Ondrej and all, On Friday, 2012-09-28 12:07:54 +0200, Ondrej Filip <ondrej.filip@nic.cz> wrote:
To test if this idea might work, we propose to have yet another one BoF during the next RIPE run similarly as a regular WG session. And in case of success we would propose a formation of a new WG.
I think the idea of an open source working group within RIPE is awesome. The Internet runs both on proprietary and open source software, and the proprietary companies have done a pretty good job of representing their interests, for example at the IETF, NOGs, RIR meetings, and so on. Inviting the open source developers in to the RIPE community would help give balance. Looking forward to the next (hopefully last) BoF. :) Cheers, -- Shane
I think the idea of an open source working group within RIPE is awesome.
The Internet runs both on proprietary and open source software, and the proprietary companies have done a pretty good job of representing their interests, for example at the IETF, NOGs, RIR meetings, and so on. Inviting the open source developers in to the RIPE community would help give balance.
Looking forward to the next (hopefully last) BoF. :)
+1 Sander
2012-10-02 12:22, Sander Steffann skrev:
I think the idea of an open source working group within RIPE is awesome.
The Internet runs both on proprietary and open source software, and the proprietary companies have done a pretty good job of representing their interests, for example at the IETF, NOGs, RIR meetings, and so on. Inviting the open source developers in to the RIPE community would help give balance.
Looking forward to the next (hopefully last) BoF. :) +1 Sander
I'd like to chime in here with another plus one. /bengan
On Oct 2 20:23, Bengt Gördén wrote:
2012-10-02 12:22, Sander Steffann skrev:
I think the idea of an open source working group within RIPE is awesome.
The Internet runs both on proprietary and open source software, and the proprietary companies have done a pretty good job of representing their interests, for example at the IETF, NOGs, RIR meetings, and so on. Inviting the open source developers in to the RIPE community would help give balance.
Looking forward to the next (hopefully last) BoF. :) +1 Sander
I'd like to chime in here with another plus one.
/bengan
+4 from Denmark ;-) Don't think the rest of the boys are gonna write, but we all like the idea. Regards, Bo Sixten Ståhle DeIC/DIX/UNI-C Mail: Bo.Staahle@uni-c.dk Tel: +45 3587 8265 - Mob: +45 2921 6751 - Home Office: +45 3694 7417
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Bo Ståhle <bo.sixten.staahle@uni-c.dk>wrote:
On Oct 2 20:23, Bengt Gördén wrote:
2012-10-02 12:22, Sander Steffann skrev:
I think the idea of an open source working group within RIPE is awesome. [...] Looking forward to the next (hopefully last) BoF. :) +1 Sander
I'd like to chime in here with another plus one.
+4 from Denmark ;-)
Don't think the rest of the boys are gonna write, but we all like the idea.
Same here from France, +1 :) -- Nicolas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
2012-10-02 12:22, Sander Steffann skrev:
I think the idea of an open source working group within RIPE is awesome. +1
I'm "only" an occasional contributor to OSS - but very strong minded for&in OSS. Let the list know where & how help is needed, I'd be happy to fill a gap there if needed.. - -- best regards Michael Markstaller Elaborated Networks GmbH www.elabnet.de Lise-Meitner-Str. 1, D-85662 Hohenbrunn, Germany fon: +49-8102-8951-60, fax: +49-8102-8951-80 Geschäftsführer: Stefan Werner, Michael Markstaller Amtsgericht München HRB 125120, Ust-ID: DE201281054 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBrXGYACgkQaWRHV2kMuALpHQCg+IR57DJwpYpfVlep2BbTvukE uXoAnj5Ngr0y9pPTFrf4LjSCzAdVe6ZM =9Zra -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sep 28, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Ondrej Filip <ondrej.filip@NIC.CZ> wrote:
We do want to limit the coverage on projects related and of interest to the RIPE community. Example of Open Source projects which we believe are a good fit for the group are Routing products like Bird, Quagga, OpenBGPd, XORP and other projects relevant to the community like DHCP, Network Management tools like RRDtool, Ntop or Nagios.
I have two questions: 1. Are you consciously not mentioning DNS software? Do you expect DNS Open Source discussions to remain in the DNS WG? I think clarity is needed to avoid duplication. 2. There might be vendors that do not provide open-source but do have a genuine interest in understanding the needs of the community and would like to work with the community; are those welcome? There are probably also Open Source developers that need to run a business and use this as a marketing event. I understand you wouldn't want that (at least I don't) but how can you make the distinction? A paragraph about what this WG should not be might clarify. In general I like the idea. --Olaf NLnet Labs Olaf M. Kolkman www.NLnetLabs.nl olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Science Park 400, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
On 15 Oct 2012, at 10:17, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
1. Are you consciously not mentioning DNS software? Do you expect DNS Open Source discussions to remain in the DNS WG? I think clarity is needed to avoid duplication.
A charter needs to be suitably vague to allow for flexibility. In the case of this suggested WG, I think its charter should not enumerate lists of software that are in or out of scope. These will change over time => endless rechartering and existential debates that are best avoided.
2. There might be vendors that do not provide open-source but do have a genuine interest in understanding the needs of the community and would like to work with the community; are those welcome? There are probably also Open Source developers that need to run a business and use this as a marketing event. I understand you wouldn't want that (at least I don't) but how can you make the distinction? A paragraph about what this WG should not be might clarify.
It it takes more than a paragraph to define a WG charter, we're doomed. :-)
In general I like the idea.
Olaf, you seem to be hinting the new WG could be about tools (open source or otherwise) rather than just open source software. That would be a better choice IMO. A tools WG might well focus on open source software. However its charter could/should be wide enough to incorporate other things which are not covered by a BSD or GPL type licence but are of general interest/use for running a network. BTW, the Chair(s) of this new WG should be able to weed out salespitches without having this requirement etched in stone in the charter. Who knows, maybe the WG members will want fluffy marketing presentations?
On Oct 15, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2012, at 10:17, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
1. Are you consciously not mentioning DNS software? Do you expect DNS Open Source discussions to remain in the DNS WG? I think clarity is needed to avoid duplication.
A charter needs to be suitably vague to allow for flexibility. In the case of this suggested WG, I think its charter should not enumerate lists of software that are in or out of scope. These will change over time => endless rechartering and existential debates that are best avoided.
I asked for clarity (of intend), not for enumeration (of software, protocols, or topics).
2. There might be vendors that do not provide open-source but do have a genuine interest in understanding the needs of the community and would like to work with the community; are those welcome? There are probably also Open Source developers that need to run a business and use this as a marketing event. I understand you wouldn't want that (at least I don't) but how can you make the distinction? A paragraph about what this WG should not be might clarify.
It it takes more than a paragraph to define a WG charter, we're doomed. :-)
As long as the chairs have a handle to declare a topic out of scope.
In general I like the idea.
Olaf, you seem to be hinting the new WG could be about tools (open source or otherwise) rather than just open source software.
Yes, thanks, that is indeed what I tried to communicate, but couldn't formulate so succinct. --Olaf NLnet Labs Olaf M. Kolkman www.NLnetLabs.nl olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Science Park 400, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Olaf, On Monday, 2012-10-15 14:00:02 +0200, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Olaf, you seem to be hinting the new WG could be about tools (open source or otherwise) rather than just open source software.
Yes, thanks, that is indeed what I tried to communicate, but couldn't formulate so succinct.
Open source developers (including me) have said "we would like a place to discuss open source tools within RIPE". I have not heard any proprietary developers say the same. I don't know why, but I guess because they already have plenty of venues to connect with users and each other. Can we try with a focus on open source and then re-charter to include closed systems later if there is a need for it? Cheers, -- Shane
I share Shane's point of view on this. I also agree with Olaf that this shouldn't turn into a marketing event, but rather something like what Shane is alluding to below, a forum for interaction between open source implementations and their users within the framework of making network operations better Joao On 15 Oct 2012, at 12:57, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
Olaf,
On Monday, 2012-10-15 14:00:02 +0200, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Olaf, you seem to be hinting the new WG could be about tools (open source or otherwise) rather than just open source software.
Yes, thanks, that is indeed what I tried to communicate, but couldn't formulate so succinct.
Open source developers (including me) have said "we would like a place to discuss open source tools within RIPE".
I have not heard any proprietary developers say the same. I don't know why, but I guess because they already have plenty of venues to connect with users and each other.
Can we try with a focus on open source and then re-charter to include closed systems later if there is a need for it?
Cheers,
-- Shane
2012-10-15 21:04, Joao Damas skrev:
I share Shane's point of view on this.
Same here.
I also agree with Olaf that this shouldn't turn into a marketing event, but rather something like what Shane is alluding to below, a forum for interaction between open source implementations and their users within the framework of making network operations better
If there is a need for marketing events there is plenty of room at the RIPE meetings. I have nothing against yet another T-shirt. But should be kept outside the wg agenda. /bengan
If there is a need for marketing events there is plenty of room at the RIPE meetings. I have nothing against yet another T-shirt. But should be kept outside the wg agenda.
+1 (both on the extra t-shirts and keeping it outside the wg) Sander
On Oct 15, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
Open source developers (including me) have said "we would like a place to discuss open source tools within RIPE".
I have not heard any proprietary developers say the same. I don't know why, but I guess because they already have plenty of venues to connect with users and each other.
I believe this is a reasonable argument. In this context I wondered what is so specific about the tools that makes it necessary to call out the nature of the distribution license. Jim summarized my question quite succinct: Isn't this a working group to discuss tools, exchange ideas, and approaches? The question that I am trying to answer for myself is what is the primitive that you are trying to capture with the strong emphasis on Open Source. I think what you wrote above, and what I've seen in thread, contains part of the answer: there is a cooperative and bottom-up mindset with and between the developers and users of these tools, a different type of relation than the traditional proprietary vendor-custommer relation. Oh, by the way, if we are going to exchange ideas about implementation, do we need an IPR policy? --Olaf NLnet Labs Olaf M. Kolkman www.NLnetLabs.nl olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Science Park 400, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Olaf, On Tuesday, 2012-10-16 10:27:58 +0200, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
Open source developers (including me) have said "we would like a place to discuss open source tools within RIPE".
I have not heard any proprietary developers say the same. I don't know why, but I guess because they already have plenty of venues to connect with users and each other.
I believe this is a reasonable argument.
In this context I wondered what is so specific about the tools that makes it necessary to call out the nature of the distribution license. Jim summarized my question quite succinct: Isn't this a working group to discuss tools, exchange ideas, and approaches?
The question that I am trying to answer for myself is what is the primitive that you are trying to capture with the strong emphasis on Open Source. I think what you wrote above, and what I've seen in thread, contains part of the answer: there is a cooperative and bottom-up mindset with and between the developers and users of these tools, a different type of relation than the traditional proprietary vendor-custommer relation.
The world is much more creative at making new problems than software developers are of thinking of solutions to them in advance. If you have closed source software, you know what to do - complain about it on Facebook. ;) Seriously though, you engage with the vendor and hope for the best. What do you do if you have open source software that does not do what you want? You have a lot of options: * Talk to the developers, see if they want to do it * Make the change yourself * Pay someone else to make the changes Say, for example, you want tcpdump to switch log files *on the hour* instead of "every 3600 seconds". Even though it's not part of mainline tcpdump, patches for this functionality exist, and if you prefer it's not rocket science to make that change. You have quite a few interactions that don't exist in the commercial space - you have developer forums, user forums, the code repositories, patch collections, distributors and their changes, and so on. Okay, they exist for commercial products, but not in the same way. Everything is ultimately couched in a client-vendor relationship. What I'm thinking is that RIPE can offer a way for users with related problems, using related software, to discuss this and add their voices as a group to existing open source conversations. Ultimately for smaller projects it might be the main way to engage the users.
Oh, by the way, if we are going to exchange ideas about implementation, do we need an IPR policy?
Please no. -- Shane
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:33:37AM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
What do you do if you have open source software that does not do what you want? You have a lot of options:
* Talk to the developers, see if they want to do it
I'm old fashioned so I'll assume there are per SW mailing lists (add web fora, your favourite walled garden 'social' network, ...) already. Would the additional benefit be the face to face opportunity? There is a MAT WG with the 'T' in its name. What overlap can we expect between MAT and this proposed Open Source Tools WG? -Peter
On 16.10.2012 15:27, Peter Koch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:33:37AM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
What do you do if you have open source software that does not do what you want? You have a lot of options:
* Talk to the developers, see if they want to do it
I'm old fashioned so I'll assume there are per SW mailing lists (add web fora, your favourite walled garden 'social' network, ...) already. Would the additional benefit be the face to face opportunity?
Peter, we have thousands mailing lists about DNS and we still have two DNS sessions twice a year. (And I am happy about it!) I don't understand your point. It is very different to send a new feature list into a mailing list compared to presenting new features and discussing with users and seeing people's reaction.
There is a MAT WG with the 'T' in its name. What overlap can we expect between MAT and this proposed Open Source Tools WG?
I believe we should take the same approach as with DNS WG overlap. Ondrej
-Peter
-- ( CZ.NIC z.s.p.o. ) ------------------------------------------------- Ondrej Filip - CEO Office : Americka 23, Praha 2, Czech Republic Email : ondrej.filip@nic.cz http://www.nic.cz Private: feela@network.cz -------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:11:39AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
A charter needs to be suitably vague to allow for flexibility. In the
the charter also needs to be sufficiently clear to convey a general idea of overlap and distinction between the WGs, not the least because there is a finite amount of meeting slots. I'd generaly think that there ought to be a WG when there's enough (new) inetrest, but to me it is not yet clear what actual work/community building is to be done in that open source WG and Olaf's question re: DNS software, for one, is more than justified. -Peter
Peter, On Oct 15, 2012, at 6:52 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:11:39AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
A charter needs to be suitably vague to allow for flexibility. In the
the charter also needs to be sufficiently clear to convey a general idea of overlap and distinction between the WGs, not the least because there is a finite amount of meeting slots. I'd generaly think that there ought to be a WG when there's enough (new) inetrest, but to me it is not yet clear what actual work/community building is to be done in that open source WG and Olaf's question re: DNS software, for one, is more than justified.
Just to add to Ondrej's answer: Yes, DNS is definitely of high interest to the community. However, there is already a WG dedicated to DNS, so we thought it doesn't make sense to cover DNS in two WGs. So, yes, in some kind of way, we excluded DNS from the charter (for now). But we are open for discussion. - Martin Winter
On 15/10/12 11:11, Jim Reid wrote:
the new WG could be about tools (open source or otherwise) rather than just open source software.
It could be, but please no. I think there is more value in bringing people together in a room who want to solve problems as a community, rather than bring people together to buy. Those with knowledge to present, and who sell tools can still get agenda space in every other related workgroup or plenary if their content is interesting enough. Andy
On 15.10.2012 11:17, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Ondrej Filip <ondrej.filip@NIC.CZ <mailto:ondrej.filip@NIC.CZ>> wrote:
We do want to limit the coverage on projects related and of interest to the RIPE community. Example of Open Source projects which we believe are a good fit for the group are Routing products like Bird, Quagga, OpenBGPd, XORP and other projects relevant to the community like DHCP, Network Management tools like RRDtool, Ntop or Nagios.
I have two questions:
1. Are you consciously not mentioning DNS software? Do you expect DNS Open Source discussions to remain in the DNS WG? I think clarity is needed to avoid duplication.
Hi Olaf, very good question, thank you for that. I do not have a simple answer. At the beginning we were thinking specifically about open source routing software and later on we extended this idea to open source software relevant to the RIPE community. And of course, the overlap with DNS WG is pretty obvious. I would be happy this new WG to cover also DNS related topic, but DNS WG charter says - "The working group discusses DNS software implementations, especially security and scalability aspects as well as performance and interoperability considerations. " So to avoid the confusion we can explicitly exclude DNS software. But perhaps the best way is to start a discussion in dns-gw list. Any suggestions?
2. There might be vendors that do not provide open-source but do have a genuine interest in understanding the needs of the community and would like to work with the community; are those welcome? There are probably also Open Source developers that need to run a business and use this as a marketing event. I understand you wouldn't want that (at least I don't) but how can you make the distinction? A paragraph about what this WG should not be might clarify.
That are actually two questions. First - We did not expect to allow presentation of commercial vendors as those people have usually their ways how to get feedback or communicate with their customers. And second - So, are you suggesting we should extend the WG charter by adding one more paragraph explaining that presentation shared during this WG should not support commercial interests of those open source vendors? I do not object. Ondrej
In general I like the idea.
Thank you!
--Olaf
*NLnet *Labs
Olaf M. Kolkman
www.NLnetLabs.nl <http://www.NLnetLabs.nl> olaf@NLnetLabs.nl <mailto:olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
Science Park 400, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
-- ( CZ.NIC z.s.p.o. ) ------------------------------------------------- Ondrej Filip - CEO Office : Americka 23, Praha 2, Czech Republic Email : ondrej.filip@nic.cz http://www.nic.cz Private: feela@network.cz -------------------------------------------------
Hi,
very good question, thank you for that. I do not have a simple answer. At the beginning we were thinking specifically about open source routing software and later on we extended this idea to open source software relevant to the RIPE community. And of course, the overlap with DNS WG is pretty obvious. I would be happy this new WG to cover also DNS related topic, but DNS WG charter says - "The working group discusses DNS software implementations, especially security and scalability aspects as well as performance and interoperability considerations. " So to avoid the confusion we can explicitly exclude DNS software. But perhaps the best way is to start a discussion in dns-gw list. Any suggestions?
Instead of defining everything now, why not specify something like: "If the software/tools being discussed in this working group are relevant for another RIPE working group then the chairs of all relevant working groups will decide together in which working group the discussion takes place. The working groups will then notify their members of the decision." The outcome might depend on many things. Let's give the chairs the freedom to organise things properly :-) - Sander
On Oct 15, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi,
very good question, thank you for that. I do not have a simple answer. At the beginning we were thinking specifically about open source routing software and later on we extended this idea to open source software relevant to the RIPE community. And of course, the overlap with DNS WG is pretty obvious. I would be happy this new WG to cover also DNS related topic, but DNS WG charter says - "The working group discusses DNS software implementations, especially security and scalability aspects as well as performance and interoperability considerations. " So to avoid the confusion we can explicitly exclude DNS software. But perhaps the best way is to start a discussion in dns-gw list. Any suggestions?
Instead of defining everything now, why not specify something like: "If the software/tools being discussed in this working group are relevant for another RIPE working group then the chairs of all relevant working groups will decide together in which working group the discussion takes place. The working groups will then notify their members of the decision."
The initial draft of the charter was shorter and didn't list any specific software. However, we were asked to make it a little more specific and not too generic - under the assumption that a charter can always be changed. The good thing on the current draft with being more specific is that it gives a good idea on what we had in mind. I'm sure the draft of the charter will be updated at least one more time before the WG is official (decision will be in the plenary at the next RIPE meeting). In the meantime take this as a hint for software which we thought might be nice to be covered (and where I wanted to contact maintainers to see if/how they are interested in it). And we are are very interested in suggestions on what (other) Open Source projects you all think might be good to contact for this WG. (Or if you are involved in one of them and want to help/join in some form then please speak up)
The outcome might depend on many things. Let's give the chairs the freedom to organise things properly :-)
Thanks. But this is a community thing. Input/Suggestions are highly welcome. - Martin Winter
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 12:07 +0200, Ondrej Filip wrote:
Dear RIPE community members! I hope many of you were able to follow Martin's presentation during today's plenary. For the others I am sending a short summary how this idea emerged and also a text of the proposed charter. We will appreciate any feedback from you.
Originally, the open source routing developers of Quagga and BIRD wanted to have a space to meet with their product users and therefore organized two BoFs at the RIPE meetings. Both BoFs where quite successful with reasonable high attendance about fifty people. We had very interesting discussion and live exchange of ideas between open source developers and users. And it helped to improve both mentioned products as some of the requested features were implemented and therefore it also helped some of the participants in their deployments. On those BoFs an idea of forming RIPE WG emerged. However if was felt that to focus only on routing daemon software would be to narrow. So the idea was modified to create a working group discussing all open source project relevant to RIPE community. This proposed working group charter follows:
--- The aim of the Open Source Working Group is to foster discussion among developers, ISPs and other RIPE community members about Open Source projects related to the RIPE community. The working group believes into the future benefits of Open Source in the community and regularly discusses new features and advices on developments on selected projects.
The idea of this WG is really focused on open coordination and feedback between developers of Open Source Software and the RIPE community. We want to sustain a platform where developers from a project can present recent updates, discuss their plans and get feedback on their work.
We do want to limit the coverage on projects related and of interest to the RIPE community. Example of Open Source projects which we believe are a good fit for the group are Routing products like Bird, Quagga, OpenBGPd, XORP and other projects relevant to the community like DHCP, Network Management tools like RRDtool, Ntop or Nagios. ---
To test if this idea might work, we propose to have yet another one BoF during the next RIPE run similarly as a regular WG session. And in case of success we would propose a formation of a new WG.
Thank you for you comments!
Martin Winter and Ondrej Filip
Nice! I don't know if Luigi Rizzo is reading this list but the netmap project is likely to be an interesting topic for people using open source software routing as well: http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap Sincerely, Laurent http://tetaneutral.net member of http://gitoyen.net BIRD looking glass free software http://lg.tetaneutral.net/prefix_bgpmap/gw+h3/ipv4?q=ripe.net
participants (14)
-
Andy Davidson -
Bengt Gördén -
Bo Ståhle -
Jim Reid -
Joao Damas -
Laurent GUERBY -
Martin Winter -
Michael Markstaller -
Nicolas CARTRON -
Olaf Kolkman -
Ondrej Filip -
Peter Koch -
Sander Steffann -
Shane Kerr