nanog mailing list archives

RE: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)


From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica () juniper net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:55:50 -0400

Cameron,

Please stay tuned. While 6-to-4-historic is on hold, it is far from being dead. Expect more discussion in Quebec and on 
the mailing list. I doubt if there will be any final decision before Quebec.


                                               Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.list6 () gmail com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:44 AM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: Leo Bicknell; nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6
broken?)

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica () juniper net>
wrote:
Leo,

Maybe we can fix this by:

a) bringing together larger groups of clueful operators in the IETF
b) deciding which issues interest them
c) showing up and being vocal as a group in protocol developing
working groups

To some degree, we already do this in the IETF OPS area, but judging
by your comments, we don't do it nearly enough.

Comments?


There may be an OPS area, but it is not listened to.

Witness the latest debacle with the attempt at trying to make 6to4
historic.

Various "non-practicing entities" were able to derail what network
operators largely supported.  Since the IETF failed to make progress
operators will do other things to stop 6to4 ( i have heard no AAAA
over IPv4 transport, blackhole 6to4 anycast, decom relay routers...)

Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they have
customers to support and businesses to run,  and they don't have thumb
wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game.

Cameron


              Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell () ufp org]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6
broken?)

In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, Jeroen
Massar wrote:
Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing lists
and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG are
already doing.

The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly broken.

The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process.  If
you try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol development
for example you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response,
which in many cases is right.  Sometimes you just have to play with
something before you worry about the operational details.  It also does
not help that many operational types are not hardcore programmers, and
can't play in the sandbox during the major development cycles.






Current thread: