NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Thu Apr 23 09:36:24 CDT 2009


On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote:

> Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent
> at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group.
> That would be how change is brought about in a participative  
> organisation,
> no? :)

Why don't you start by simpling stating what you want to have happen?

So far I've seen a number of messages complaining about the IETF (btw,  
if you like complaining about the IETF, go to the meetings, there is  
significant time set aside for that there) but not a single technical  
request, remark or observation.

The IETF works by rough consensus. That means if people disagree,  
nothing much happens. That is annoying. But a lot of good work gets  
done when people agree, and a lot of the time good technical arguments  
help.

Like I said, the IETF really wants input from operators. Why not start  
by giving some?




More information about the NANOG mailing list