Cameron,
Please stay tuned. While 6-to-4-historic is on hold, it is far from being dead.
Expect more discussion in Quebec and on the mailing list. I doubt if there will
be any final decision before Quebec.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:44 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: Leo Bicknell; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6
> broken?)
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
> wrote:
> > Leo,
> >
> > Maybe we can fix this by:
> >
> > a) bringing together larger groups of clueful operators in the IETF
> > b) deciding which issues interest them
> > c) showing up and being vocal as a group in protocol developing
> working groups
> >
> > To some degree, we already do this in the IETF OPS area, but judging
> by your comments, we don't do it nearly enough.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
>
> There may be an OPS area, but it is not listened to.
>
> Witness the latest debacle with the attempt at trying to make 6to4
> historic.
>
> Various "non-practicing entities" were able to derail what network
> operators largely supported. Since the IETF failed to make progress
> operators will do other things to stop 6to4 ( i have heard no AAAA
> over IPv4 transport, blackhole 6to4 anycast, decom relay routers...)
>
> Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they have
> customers to support and businesses to run, and they don't have thumb
> wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game.
>
> Cameron
>
>
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6
> broken?)
> >
> > In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, Jeroen
> Massar wrote:
> >> Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing lists
> >> and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG are
> already doing.
> >
> > The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly broken.
> >
> > The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process. If
> you try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol development
> for example you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response,
> which in many cases is right. Sometimes you just have to play with
> something before you worry about the operational details. It also does
> not help that many operational types are not hardcore programmers, and
> can't play in the sandbox during the major development cycles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
