NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]
William Allen Simpson
william.allen.simpson at gmail.com
Thu Apr 23 12:11:10 UTC 2009
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's
> hard to undo that. ....
>
That's an understatement.
> Also don't expect too much from IETF participation: if doing X is going
> to make a vendor more money than doing Y, they're going to favor X, even
> if Y is the superior solution.
>
Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years....
More information about the NANOG
mailing list