nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 Confusion


From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:55:07 -0800

Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009, Tony Hain wrote:

No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from IPv4. If
anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is specify
it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF has
resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because nobody
stood up and did the work to make it happen.

Please explain where you think "*nog" community is today representative
at all of the wider scale IPv6 deployment issues across the world?

I'm assuming IETF and ARIN/RIPE/APNIC/etc are busy talking to end-users
rather than just ISPs about the issues facing IPv6 adoption. Am I
mistaken or not?

The end-users who come too three meetings a year and pay $635 to attend
are a small and self-selecting bunch (there are some I would note)...

The IETF is not in the business of product development of the sort that
end-users would normally relate to.

The RIRs have there respective stakeholders, some are end-users most are
not.



Adrian





Current thread: