IPv6 Confusion

Thu Feb 19 15:19:19 UTC 2009

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.

-- 
       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/20090219/9355127a/attachment.sig>