nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:19:19 -0500
In a message written on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
<some-hat-on> Would it be insane to have an IETF back-to-back with a NANOG? </some-hat-on>
Probably, but it would be a good idea. :) I have no idea how the IETF agenda is set, but that may be part of the trick. I suspect network operators care a lot about protocols at lower layers in the stack, and less and less at higher levels in the stack. SeND, DHCP, the RA stuff are all very important to us; some new header field in HTTP or IMAP much less so. Since IETF is usually 5 days, it would be nice if that lower level stuff could be adjacent to NANOG. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- 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)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Christopher Morrow (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mohacsi Janos (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 19)