turning on comcast v6

Mon Dec 30 23:09:48 UTC 2013

On Dec 30, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> The current situation isn’t attributable to “the current IPv6 crowd” (whoever that is), it’s the current IETF consensus position. Changing that IETF consensus position is a matter of going through the IETF process and getting a new consensus. That requires justifying your position and convincing enough people willing to actively participate in the working group process of that position.

Some of us tried to engage the IETF on this topic in multiple working groups.  If you search the archives you'll find this topic has come up before.  I would charitably describe the environment there as "hostile" to anyone who has not been inside the IEFT machine for the last 15 years. And that's assuming the working group is "working", there are plenty inside the IEFT that are extremely dysfunctional even when the people on them "agree".

It's not enough to tell a bunch of enterprise people who have never dealt with the IETF before that they should go there are plead their case.  Most do not know how, and the few who try find themselves berated by that community for being ignorant of the "way things should be".

What the enterprise folks need is IPv6 champions, like yourself, like Lee, to user stand their use case that even if you don't end up deploying it on your own network you will show up at the IETF, or at least participate on the IETF mailing lists and help them get what they need, so IPv6 deployment can proceed apace.  If you really don't think there is harm, help them go get what they (think they?) need.

-- 
       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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 793 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20131230/59774f14/attachment.sig>