Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re"impacting revenue"]

[Marshall Eubanks <tme () multicasttech com>]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Manish Karir wrote:

> Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long
> mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010?
> The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this
> would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all
> sorts of help and interest from the ietf to put together.
> Perhaps the NANOG SC can try to figure out if there is
> sufficient interest in this and what this should consist
> of?

People probably know this, but just in case...

If there is interest in organizing a joint meeting during an IETF, the  
person to contact with logistical concerns (getting a room or rooms,  
etc.) would
be the IAD, Ray Pelletier, <iad () ietf org>; I would also cc the IAOC, <iaoc () ietf org 
> .

To coordinate technical concerns, I would start with either the IETF  
Chair, Russ Housley, <chair () ietf org>,
or the OPS area ADs, Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica (see http://www.ietf.org/IESGmems.html 
 ).

Regards
Marshall

> -manish
>
>
>
> -------
> >  * From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
> >  * Date: Thu Apr 23 10:37:12 2009
> >
> >  * List-archive: <http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/nanog>
> >  * List-help: <mailto:nanog-request () nanog org?subject=help>
> >  * List-id: North American Network Operators Group <nanog.nanog.org>
> >  * List-post: <mailto:nanog () nanog org>
> >  * List-subscribe: ><http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> > nanog>,<mailto:nanog-request () nanog org?subject=subscribe>
> >  * List-unsubscribe: ><http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog 
> > >,<mailto:nanog-request () nanog org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >
> >
> >  Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should  
> > represent
> >  at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group.
> >  That would be how change is brought about in a participative  
> > organisation,
> >  no? :)
> >
> > Why don't you start by simpling stating what you want to have happen?
> >
> > So far I've seen a number of messages complaining about the IETF  
> > (btw, if you like complaining about the IETF, go to >the meetings,  
> > there is significant time set aside for that there) but not a  
> > single technical request, remark or >observation.
>
> > The IETF works by rough consensus. That means if people disagree,  
> > nothing much happens. That is annoying. But a lot of >good work  
> > gets done when people agree, and a lot of the time good technical  
> > arguments help.
> >
> > Like I said, the IETF really wants input from operators. Why not  
> > start by giving some?

Regards
Marshall Eubanks
CEO / AmericaFree.TV