[85660] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 vs nanog
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Sat Oct 15 01:26:01 2005
In-Reply-To: <20051015043226.GA15338@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:23:12 -0400
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Oct 15, 2005, at 12:32 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> Not directly aimed at William: As others have said before (and I
>> finally listened) PLEASE take this discussion to the shim6 list.
>>
>
> there are some reasons why i'd rather have the discussion here...
> ) IETF IPR and legal restraints on postings
> ) shim6 is a protocol design working group, not an operational wg
> * the IETF has always done operations poorly, it seems
> worse these days.
> ) there are enough folks on both that they can "represent" to
> shim6 list as needed/desired
The problem is... from what I've seen so far the operational
requirements voice is a lonely one. If there are any network
operators on this list who wouldn't qualify for PI space in an IPv6
world... do you really want your traffic engineering decisions made
by individual end systems based on delay?
