IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [vmeet] what's been working/failed/tried in hubs?

Christian O'Flaherty <oflaherty@isoc.org> Mon, 10 October 2016 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <oflaherty@isoc.org>
X-Original-To: vmeet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vmeet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1E7129459 for <vmeet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isoc.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O6RZb3HMZhM7 for <vmeet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0074.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16A8D1293E0 for <vmeet@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isoc.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-isoc-org; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=DikNur1sMy8WCwSqiQbgY0nVXvA1To+Z1NyFYGkebSI=; b=gPbGW6Bak/jXR+5Tk+6RVCzpGjsLNYi9Joj7f4chC03nrPI/vvvlqj+Bh3RwH9Nzj8e6NiZk9UT2Q4oTH5abAvTMeZKkpHWuGshdvPrARlKPPf6WktA9n/RqHadFis+Yd64RGR3L+4xvFSd6xTEuUdOatmgeUfNlpgj0JGnTa7A=
Received: from MWHPR06MB2846.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.175.138.11) by MWHPR06MB2846.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.175.138.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.649.16; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:05:34 +0000
Received: from MWHPR06MB2846.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.175.138.11]) by MWHPR06MB2846.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.175.138.11]) with mapi id 15.01.0649.027; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:05:34 +0000
From: Christian O'Flaherty <oflaherty@isoc.org>
To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Thread-Topic: [vmeet] what's been working/failed/tried in hubs?
Thread-Index: AQHSH4Rx7KqJG1yz70uVIoJ/cfCeG6CdbxyAgAAGgQCABGuYAA==
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:05:33 +0000
Message-ID: <387A7929-37B4-4424-8697-7B00731C1928@isoc.org>
References: <CAG4d1re1td4oaPpHMHn7Ka4OYT37B6QRsygM1uvWZhDTzqyJGA@mail.gmail.com> <BCD8FF11-6277-466F-B74E-8AF5939758ED@isoc.org> <1963b53e-4669-3abe-35b1-068735a636f2@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <1963b53e-4669-3abe-35b1-068735a636f2@dcrocker.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=oflaherty@isoc.org;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [167.61.203.65]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6eee3005-ec52-4a38-181b-08d3f127443e
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR06MB2846; 6:vJwA5jhf/h9Fua+5MNk2XtapFgARLwsId/xTJrSIYG0XXTuBtks37KKj3l7fJuYd0uSKOxQKDyJxPgbzQcdXSQ+LcpQBoYdbovx+D0u5t5AMwJl7rTRkySF3RurjCF/IIABocG0WDWeHd7MNmis6xT1xKruppyC5P+MdAafgVeLwk5VTsnobhid+cFzr6Qwe8piFX1jkf7Grbv36A344L5TD+l407svVxnjUvMUm66RWMky1YSkRCcshzyJpuFdE2K787WYIBGe9a/fI7q8zpSezGGzwMJifSdaKq0t49lkzEtsmkGOnrbj/3YRjXosq; 5:zSjO5qN92CMl9Exw5k4hHBs9/N5jaKUBdseHMLt6AfF6kettYqq3dq12u7U/XSnQ9Zpg9NmINl9h5AXFmfqpy4fmHVlqZalFOiw0v6W1ZoIZgLqV0QJ9Q5UZzvLLpzuqALAPmHCireylSrkfU4SFwXezAMm8C0ieaFEHEHlhAvk=; 24:j/r8f+oy+X7giHEMyKgO+Hw3KQAi5TgLwimvEiSG6l9wMn9ACeA7yPl/HoqHPd65bnfi8rrx+TLb2b+Lzxh8YC6Daq364UOE0VCZfVryz8U=; 7:9Za6Z3hynZ133HBWC8pXxP96is4EqjBXLbB3Nr5GwpNn4tgsvofCpVsJnuacdFqSlwohLI31CM7laTo4BDFprpKRY5mmO8wUaL+ZyuW8oEbv2PTxlZrGZ5oHwuZve8vtWV7lufKNcZE/3aqUKHVKqJGDvnQdK6sftQArn73OEBehRdqgO+Vr9kK0+EfEjaQFQYoslEOf11qVMJLDCgvWFvDqyd+n5hLm9TUP0QIUIkwhOp5rHDyTR8QewEr4KZ4hILEWQaf1qBz4sqggHRYiMEe8tIocm6Chd4ZE0ODPlYLBC9LS1BsggdQfYLNFF6LbJktUUAGZzp4lrRrGdqHPfhlAlkYuV9Pezc956jzcSSo=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:MWHPR06MB2846;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR06MB284635B860B6F561FB050677CEDB0@MWHPR06MB2846.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:MWHPR06MB2846; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:MWHPR06MB2846;
x-forefront-prvs: 0091C8F1EB
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(24454002)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(189998001)(8676002)(97736004)(3280700002)(5660300001)(81156014)(101416001)(6116002)(66066001)(8936002)(3846002)(54356999)(76176999)(92566002)(33656002)(110136003)(11100500001)(1730700003)(586003)(122556002)(3660700001)(5640700001)(6916009)(2950100002)(81166006)(50986999)(83716003)(2351001)(87936001)(2501003)(68736007)(7846002)(77096005)(7736002)(305945005)(19580395003)(5002640100001)(86362001)(36756003)(10400500002)(2906002)(99286002)(4326007)(106356001)(82746002)(102836003)(2900100001)(106116001)(105586002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR06MB2846; H:MWHPR06MB2846.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: isoc.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <7D6D4DBBEDA32444BB028FE60EC13BA4@namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Oct 2016 16:05:33.8068 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 89f84dfb-7285-4810-bc4d-8b9b5794554f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR06MB2846
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vmeet/IBnJwKLfqre0uZv2Qayla053Yeo>
Cc: "juliao@braga.eti.br" <juliao@braga.eti.br>, "vmeet@ietf.org" <vmeet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [vmeet] what's been working/failed/tried in hubs?
X-BeenThere: vmeet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF remote participation meeting services discussion <vmeet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vmeet>, <mailto:vmeet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/vmeet/>
List-Post: <mailto:vmeet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vmeet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet>, <mailto:vmeet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:05:39 -0000

> On 10/7/2016 1:12 PM, Christian O'Flaherty wrote:
>> There were hubs that failed because remote participation was impossible (low quality)
> 
> 
> From this, do you have a sense of the minimum connectivity and other resource requirements, for successful technical operation of a hub?

for our “simple” LAC Hubs, the requirements are the same as those for a regular remote participant. 

I would assume that most problems are due to congestion or wi-fi issues. We recommend to the organizers to do some tests in advance but it’s usually difficult when the hubs are organized as part of a bigger event or when the organizer is not local. And even if it was possible, it’s not guaranteed that the network will have similar performance during the hub.   

If our hubs were “bigger” I would recommend minimum bandwidth requirements, wired network, projector, etc. But that imposes more workload to the organizers. 

Christian

> 
> d/
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email