[112115] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Thu Feb 19 10:20:17 2009
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:19:19 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>,
Sandy Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>, smb@cs.columbia.edu,
aredridel@nbtsc.org, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20090219150159.GB69199@puck.nether.net>
Cc: aredridel@nbtsc.org, nanog@nanog.org, Sandy Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--+g7M9IMkV8truYOl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Jared Mauch =
wrote:
> <some-hat-on>
> Would it be insane to have an IETF back-to-back with a NANOG?
> </some-hat-on>
Probably, but it would be a good idea. :)
I have no idea how the IETF agenda is set, but that may be part of
the trick. I suspect network operators care a lot about protocols
at lower layers in the stack, and less and less at higher levels
in the stack.
SeND, DHCP, the RA stuff are all very important to us; some new
header field in HTTP or IMAP much less so. Since IETF is usually
5 days, it would be nice if that lower level stuff could be adjacent
to NANOG.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--+g7M9IMkV8truYOl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFJnXh2Nh6mMG5yMTYRAp/KAKCJxUhhTcJmdxxwj1q06l/1C5sGIQCdGntQ
D/STd90diTKDIJpbgnQ6ag4=
=mdQB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--+g7M9IMkV8truYOl--
