[112053] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Wed Feb 18 16:55:31 2009
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:55:07 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <20090218214615.GL14136@skywalker.creative.net.au>
Cc: 'Aria Stewart' <aredridel@nbtsc.org>, 'nanog list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009, Tony Hain wrote:
>
>> No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from IPv4. If
>> anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is specify
>> it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF has
>> resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because nobody
>> stood up and did the work to make it happen.
>
> Please explain where you think "*nog" community is today representative
> at all of the wider scale IPv6 deployment issues across the world?
>
> I'm assuming IETF and ARIN/RIPE/APNIC/etc are busy talking to end-users
> rather than just ISPs about the issues facing IPv6 adoption. Am I
> mistaken or not?
The end-users who come too three meetings a year and pay $635 to attend
are a small and self-selecting bunch (there are some I would note)...
The IETF is not in the business of product development of the sort that
end-users would normally relate to.
The RIRs have there respective stakeholders, some are end-users most are
not.
>
>
> Adrian
>
>
