IPv6 Confusion

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Wed Feb 18 15:55:07 CST 2009


Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009, Tony Hain wrote:
> 
>> No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from IPv4. If
>> anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is specify
>> it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF has
>> resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because nobody
>> stood up and did the work to make it happen.
> 
> Please explain where you think "*nog" community is today representative
> at all of the wider scale IPv6 deployment issues across the world?
> 
> I'm assuming IETF and ARIN/RIPE/APNIC/etc are busy talking to end-users
> rather than just ISPs about the issues facing IPv6 adoption. Am I
> mistaken or not?

The end-users who come too three meetings a year and pay $635 to attend
are a small and self-selecting bunch (there are some I would note)...

The IETF is not in the business of product development of the sort that
end-users would normally relate to.

The RIRs have there respective stakeholders, some are end-users most are
not.

> 
> 
> Adrian
> 
> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list