nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 Confusion


From: Merike Kaeo <kaeo () merike com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:58:08 -0800

Opsec wg also....about 2 years ago Ross Callon went to most NOGs to solicit input and I suppose now with Joel it'll be ongoing :)

- merike

On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:40:02 -0500
Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:

And let me ask you this question, why do the operators have to go to
the IETF?  Many of us have, and tried.  I can't think of a single
working group chair/co-chair that's ever presented at NANOG and asked
for feedback.  If the IETF wants this to be a two way street actions
would speak louder than words.

Without going into details, I have spoken at NANOG, and I've been a WG
chair, an IAB member, and an AD. Randy has been an AD. I can think of
several other ADs and IAB members who have frequently attended NANOG.

I'm not saying it's perfect -- far from it! -- but the issue isn't
nearly that one-sided.


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb




Current thread: