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 00:13, Bill Armstrong 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.

Hi, Yes, that's the reason why we are playing with the idea of cross-regions cooperation on some documents - to see how the world differs culturally even in areas where things should not be that much different - a BGP session is a BGP session, right? :) Cheers, Jan