shim6 rides again (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

Wed Feb 15 17:39:20 UTC 2006

On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:26:47AM -0600, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> > Funny that shim6 is being mentioned.  The corresponding open mic session 
> > at 35 showed how gathering people for 20 minutes of complaining can 
> > effectively replace long, protracted email threads.
> 
> and what was the effect in the ietf?  zippo.

	Agreed. And to be honest, I missed this in my notes from
	35 (and the two sets of minutes that we had). While I
	can't say authoratively, but I'm willing to wager that
	the {MPLS, IPv6, <X>} WG didn't consider this as a
	proposal. To that end, I'm happy to help write it up with
	whomever wants to for Dallas (or whenever works).

	More generally folks, let's solve this problem.

	Dave
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20060215/d4139e7b/attachment.sig>