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
> 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
Like I said, the IETF really wants input from operators. Why not start
by giving some?
More information about the NANOG