[113900] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Thu Apr 23 08:11:30 2009
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:11:10 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <18DC265D-C513-45E9-8F65-8C98A26F0D4B@muada.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's
> hard to undo that. ....
>
That's an understatement.
> 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.
>
Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years....
