Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

On 22 apr 2009, at 22:12, Jack Bates wrote:

> I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years  
> into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development  
> cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY  
> published?

That's certainly one way to look at this, and I'm just as unhappy  
about how long this has taken as you. On the other hand, it has been  
argued that these issues are outside the scope of the IETF in the  
first place, as it's just application of already established  
protocols, not developing something new. So another way to look at it  
is that at least the IETF is finally doing something because so far,  
nobody else has. What would have helped here is more push in this  
direction.

> If the IETF is talking "future" and developers are also talking  
> "future", us little guys that design, build, and maintain the  
> networks can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it  
> and just make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let  
> the IETF catch up later on.

People who run networks can do a lot: believe it or not, the IETF  
really wants input from network operators, especially in the early  
phases of protocol development when the requirements are established.

Proprietary methods duking it out in the market place is nice for  
stuff that happens inside one box or at least within one  
administrative domain, but it would be a nightmare in broadband  
deployment where I want my Windows box to talk to my Apple wifi base  
station and my Motorola cable modem to the ISP's Cisco headend and  
their Extreme switches and Juniper routers.