NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF,was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re"impacting revenue"]

Thu Apr 23 15:31:44 UTC 2009

Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long
mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010?  
The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this
would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all 
sorts of help and interest from the ietf to put together.
Perhaps the NANOG SC can try to figure out if there is
sufficient interest in this and what this should consist
of?

-manish 

-------
>    * From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
>    * Date: Thu Apr 23 10:37:12 2009 
>
>    * List-archive: <http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/nanog>
>    * List-help: <mailto:nanog-request at nanog.org?subject=help>
>    * List-id: North American Network Operators Group <nanog.nanog.org>
>    * List-post: <mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
>    * List-subscribe: ><http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>,<mailto:nanog-request at nanog.org?subject=subscribe>
>    * List-unsubscribe: ><http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>,<mailto:nanog-request at nanog.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>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 organisation,
>    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 help.
>
>Like I said, the IETF really wants input from operators. Why not start by giving some?