nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:17:07 +0800
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years....
If the people with operational experience stop going, you can't blame the group for being full of vendors. Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group. That would be how change is brought about in a participative organisation, no? :) Adrian
Current thread:
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"], (continued)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Shane Ronan (Apr 21)
- NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Jack Bates (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Ren Provo (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Jack Bates (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Nathan Ward (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] William Allen Simpson (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Adrian Chadd (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] bmanning (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Pekka Savola (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Nathan Ward (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Nathan Ward (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Joel Jaeggli (Apr 22)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Chris Grundemann (Apr 23)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Matthew Kaufman (Apr 23)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Roger Marquis (Apr 21)