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 23:39, Jack Bates wrote:

> What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing  
> vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm  
> one of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other  
> vendors have just blown me off all together (we'll have it sometime).

Right. And I'm also the only one asking for 32-bit AS numbers.

> > 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.

> Serious input and participation means work and money.

You can participate on mailinglists without attending meetings, so in  
that sense it doesn't have to cost money. As an operator, it would  
make sense to spend a little time in the requirements phase but not  
after that. So yes, it would take time, but we're not talking about  
hours a day on an ongoing basis.

> Doesn't help that when I was a wee one, mom dated someone who  
> bragged about his status in the IETF

:-)

> and even had a pen. Sad way to be introduced to any organization,  
> but I have seen similar mentalities regarding IETF mentioned here  
> reinforcing my belief that arrogance is alive and I don't have the  
> time and money to deal with it.

In any case, if you have input on this whole NAT64 business, let me  
and/or Fred know. If you have input on anything else, speak up on this  
list or a NANOG meeting and there's a decent chance that someone will  
take those comments back to the IETF.