[136361] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Wed Feb 2 14:31:16 2011
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
In-Reply-To: <83A5D662-4055-4A0D-A62A-5F6552E46F20@muada.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:30:23 -0500
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2 feb 2011, at 4:51, Dave Israel wrote:
>=20
>> They were features dreamed up by academics, theoreticians, and =
purists, and opposed by operators.
>=20
> Contrary to popular belief, the IETF listens to operators and wants =
them to participate. Few do. For instance, I don't seem to remember your =
name from any IETF mailinglists. (I could be mistaken, though.)
=46rom personal experience, the only reason die-hard IETF folk want =
operators to participate on IETF lists is so that they can tell them =
that they're wrong on IETF mailing lists as opposed to operator mailing =
lists.
> Example: if you give administrators the option of putting a router =
address in a DHCP option, they will do so and some fraction of the time, =
this will be the wrong address and things don't work. If you let routers =
announce their presence, then it's virtually impossible that something =
goes wrong because routers know who they are. A clear win. Of course it =
does mean that people <gasp> have to learn something new when adopting =
IPv6.
Is anyone else reading this and the word "condescending" _not_ popping =
into their heads?=
