[112085] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Merike Kaeo)
Wed Feb 18 21:58:05 2009
In-Reply-To: <20090218180034.4e734e58@cs.columbia.edu>
From: Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:58:08 -0800
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: 'nanog list' <nanog@nanog.org>, 'Aria Stewart' <aredridel@nbtsc.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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
>
