IPv6 Confusion

Wed Feb 18 22:40:02 UTC 2009

In a message written on Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 02:32:24PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
> So did you believe him and stop participating?  Seriously, the -ONLY- way
> the IETF can be effective is for the ops community to provide active
> feedback. If you don't provide input, don't be surprised when the output is
> not what you want.

Oh yes, because he's not the only one who's said that to me (although
he was the most direct), and because others I know in the operator
community have gotten the same response.

The sad fact is for most operators it is easier to convince your
vendor to generate a propretary feature and solve your problem;
hoping they will back port it through the IETF so it is a standard.
How many years did HSRP have to exist before VRRP was defined?

And let me ask you this question, why do the operators have to go to the
IETF?  Many of us have, and tried.  I can't think of a single working
group chair/co-chair that's ever presented at NANOG and asked for
feedback.  If the IETF wants this to be a two way street actions would
speak louder than words.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090218/b59ed29a/attachment.sig>