[193595] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Temkin)
Mon Feb 6 21:18:26 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 21:17:52 -0500
From: Dave Temkin <dave@temk.in>
To: bob@fiberinternetcenter.com
In-Reply-To: <5fb25deef55a708b50e3bfcee2745ce4.squirrel@66.201.44.180>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi Bob,
This was inadvertent and we will bring this back for NANOG 70.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 6:58 PM -0500, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com>, wrote:
> I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method
> is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and
> existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an
> individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and
> today there is nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars at
> any office supply retailer.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Thank You
> Bob Evans
> CTO
>
>
>
>
> > The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better
> > option.
> >
> > There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that
> > justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in
> > the general session throughout the program.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>,
> > wrote:
> > > I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69,
> > > and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or
> > > peering social this time around. Am I being
> > > blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere
> > > but I'm just overlooking it?
> > > Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks! :)
> > >
> > > Matt
> >
>
>
