nanog mailing list archives
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
From: Michael.Dillon () btradianz com
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:55:01 +0000
Perhaps people should stop trying to have these operational discussions in the IETF and take the discussions to NANOG where network operators gather.We have tried, of course; see, for example, NANOG 28 (Salt Lake City). There was no more consensus at NANOG than in the IETF...
One attempt almost 3 years ago, doesn't sound very serious to me. And if the discussion is only concerned with seeking consensus on implementing a new flavor of BGP protocol then it isn't much of a discussion. In fact, there was a consensus at Salt Lake City that the issues of routing security could be adequately dealt with by existing tools and protocols. Not all problems require new protocols to solve them. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- RE: MPLS vs PTP, (continued)
- RE: MPLS vs PTP Neil J. McRae (Jan 31)
- Re: MPLS vs PTP Michael Loftis (Jan 31)
- Re: MPLS vs PTP John Curran (Jan 31)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 27)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Joe Abley (Jan 27)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 27)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Michael . Dillon (Jan 30)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Todd Underwood (Jan 27)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Michael . Dillon (Jan 27)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Steven M. Bellovin (Jan 28)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Michael . Dillon (Jan 30)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Todd Underwood (Jan 27)
- Re: So -- what did happen to Panix? Todd Underwood (Jan 30)