[113898] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Thu Apr 23 07:01:08 2009
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
In-Reply-To: <BAB86535-87C1-4FC9-857B-60042F300F8A@daork.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:00:39 +0200
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 23 apr 2009, at 12:23, Nathan Ward wrote:
> Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date,
> but not so good for getting things changed.
> That's what I've found, anyway. Might not always be true.
Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF,
it's hard to undo that. But there are also times when even a single
message containing good arguments can have an effect.
Also don't expect too much from IETF participation: if doing X is
going to make a vendor more money than doing Y, they're going to favor
X, even if Y is the superior solution.
