[142726] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cameron Byrne)
Tue Jul 12 11:45:08 2011
In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D3F3B84B65@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:43:59 -0700
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> Leo,
>
> Maybe we can fix this by:
>
> a) bringing together larger groups of clueful operators in the IETF
> b) deciding which issues interest them
> c) showing up and being vocal as a group in protocol developing working g=
roups
>
> To some degree, we already do this in the IETF OPS area, but judging by y=
our comments, we don't do it nearly enough.
>
> Comments?
>
There may be an OPS area, but it is not listened to.
Witness the latest debacle with the attempt at trying to make 6to4 historic=
.
Various "non-practicing entities" were able to derail what network
operators largely supported. Since the IETF failed to make progress
operators will do other things to stop 6to4 ( i have heard no AAAA
over IPv4 transport, blackhole 6to4 anycast, decom relay routers...)
Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they have
customers to support and businesses to run, and they don't have thumb
wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game.
Cameron
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Ron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken=
?)
>
> In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, Jeroen Mas=
sar wrote:
>> Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing lists
>> and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG are alread=
y doing.
>
> The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly broken.
>
> The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process. =A0If you =
try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol development for exam=
ple you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response, which in many c=
ases is right. =A0Sometimes you just have to play with something before you=
worry about the operational details. =A0It also does not help that many op=
erational types are not hardcore programmers, and can't play in the sandbox=
during the major development cycles.
>
>
>
>
