nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:36:24 +0200
On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote:
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? :)
Why don't you start by simpling stating what you want to have happen?So far I've seen a number of messages complaining about the IETF (btw, if you like complaining about the IETF, go to the meetings, there is significant time set aside for that there) but not a single technical request, remark or observation.
The IETF works by rough consensus. That means if people disagree, nothing much happens. That is annoying. But a lot of good work gets done when people agree, and a lot of the time good technical arguments help.
Like I said, the IETF really wants input from operators. Why not start by giving some?
Current thread:
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"], (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Justin M. Streiner (Apr 21)