-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Well... If you want to work on one, I'm willing help shepherd it through the process. We even have a working group setup for that purpose.
proposal for work in GROW?
Actually, that sounds reasonable -- if GROW [1] outcomes are heeded by the operations community. Historically, it seems, the Internet operations community picks and chooses the IETF RFCs/BCPs that each ISP implements on a "one-off" basis. Something (else) that I have long admired is the way the RIPE community has built working groups around critical issues. I'm still convinced that the NANOG community -- perhaps in collaboration with RIPE and APNIC, et al -- should work to craft ISP "best current practices" in these areas, since ISPs don't seem to heed IETF documents, except when it serves their own business & operational practices. - - ferg [1] http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/grow-charter.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHxMu8q1pz9mNUZTMRAk/wAJ9Mm3sWL9t1cCfy8sAhTd6DfxMIGwCfTauG 9lha9MMTiR4kPoPEHtBjfRQ= =atCM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Paul Ferguson wrote:
I'm still convinced that the NANOG community -- perhaps in collaboration with RIPE and APNIC, et al -- should work to craft ISP "best current practices" in these areas, since ISPs don't seem to heed IETF documents, except when it serves their own business & operational practices.
- ferg
HELL NO(1)! Lets instead wait until the entire thing caves in, we run out of IPv4 space, and the governments have to step in and fix it for us. That's a solution! Andrew (1) This would be a vote of support for what Paul is saying.
participants (2)
-
Andrew D Kirch -
Paul Ferguson