On Dec 30, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@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 - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
