nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:11:10 -0400
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's hard to undo that. ....
That's an understatement.
Also don't expect too much from IETF participation: if doing X is going to make a vendor more money than doing Y, they're going to favor X, even if Y is the superior solution.
Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years....
Current thread:
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"], (continued)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Owen DeLong (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Shane Ronan (Apr 21)
- NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Jack Bates (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Ren Provo (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Jack Bates (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Nathan Ward (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] William Allen Simpson (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Adrian Chadd (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] bmanning (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Pekka Savola (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Nathan Ward (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Nathan Ward (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Joel Jaeggli (Apr 22)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Chris Grundemann (Apr 23)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Matthew Kaufman (Apr 23)