Cameron, Please stay tuned. While 6-to-4-historic is on hold, it is far from being dead. Expect more discussion in Quebec and on the mailing list. I doubt if there will be any final decision before Quebec. Ron
-----Original Message----- From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:44 AM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Leo Bicknell; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
Leo,
Maybe we can fix this by:
a) bringing together larger groups of clueful operators in the IETF b) deciding which issues interest them c) showing up and being vocal as a group in protocol developing working groups
To some degree, we already do this in the IETF OPS area, but judging by your comments, we don't do it nearly enough.
Comments?
There may be an OPS area, but it is not listened to.
Witness the latest debacle with the attempt at trying to make 6to4 historic.
Various "non-practicing entities" were able to derail what network operators largely supported. Since the IETF failed to make progress operators will do other things to stop 6to4 ( i have heard no AAAA over IPv4 transport, blackhole 6to4 anycast, decom relay routers...)
Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they have customers to support and businesses to run, and they don't have thumb wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game.
Cameron
Ron
-----Original Message----- From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing lists and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG are already doing.
The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly broken.
The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process. If you try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol development for example you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response, which in many cases is right. Sometimes you just have to play with something before you worry about the operational details. It also does not help that many operational types are not hardcore programmers, and can't play in the sandbox during the major development cycles.