Re: IPv6 Confusion

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:19:19 -0500
Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:

> 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.
The IETF agenda isn't set that way -- not even close...

The big problem I see is that after a week of IETF, I'm *completely*
fried.  It's also just a very long time to be away from my family.


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb