[112071] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Wed Feb 18 18:00:46 2009
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:00:34 -0500
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090218224001.GA19041@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: 'Aria Stewart' <aredridel@nbtsc.org>, 'nanog list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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
