nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:00:34 -0500
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:40:02 -0500 Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:
And let me ask you this question, why do the operators have to go to the IETF? Many of us have, and tried. I can't think of a single working group chair/co-chair that's ever presented at NANOG and asked for feedback. If the IETF wants this to be a two way street actions would speak louder than words.
Without going into details, I have spoken at NANOG, and I've been a WG chair, an IAB member, and an AD. Randy has been an AD. I can think of several other ADs and IAB members who have frequently attended NANOG. I'm not saying it's perfect -- far from it! -- but the issue isn't nearly that one-sided. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Joel Jaeggli (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion John Schnizlein (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Joel Jaeggli (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Marshall Eubanks (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Merike Kaeo (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Sandy Murphy (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jared Mauch (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Marshall Eubanks (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Sandy Murphy (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Daniel Senie (Feb 18)