IPv6 Confusion

Marshall Eubanks tme at multicasttech.com
Thu Feb 19 10:01:30 CST 2009


On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:19:19 -0500
> Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
>
>> In a message written on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Jared
>> Mauch wrote:
>>> <some-hat-on>
>>> Would it be insane to have an IETF back-to-back with a NANOG?
>>> </some-hat-on>
>>
>> Probably, but it would be a good idea. :)
>>
>> I have no idea how the IETF agenda is set, but that may be part of
>> the trick.  I suspect network operators care a lot about protocols
>> at lower layers in the stack, and less and less at higher levels
>> in the stack.
>>
>> SeND, DHCP, the RA stuff are all very important to us; some new
>> header field in HTTP or IMAP much less so.  Since IETF is usually
>> 5 days, it would be nice if that lower level stuff could be adjacent
>> to NANOG.
>>
> The IETF agenda isn't set that way -- not even close...
>
> The big problem I see is that after a week of IETF, I'm *completely*
> fried.  It's also just a very long time to be away from my family.
>
>

I fully agree. There is no time at any IETF meeting (at least for me,  
FWIW) to go to other
meetings.

Note that IETF agenda times are set out some time into the future to  
avoid conflicts with IEEE 802.1 and other bodies :

http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt

If you want to pick a date and make a proposal, send it to Ray  
Pelletier and / or the IAOC

iad at ietf.org
iaoc at ietf.org

Regards
Marshall


> 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list