On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Manish Karir wrote:
Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long
mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010?
The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this
would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all
sorts of help and interest fro
Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long
mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010?
The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this
would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all
sorts of help and interest from the ietf to put together.
Perhaps the NANOG SC ca
On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent
at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group.
That would be how change is brought about in a participative
organisation,
no? :)
Why don't you start by simpling
On 24/04/2009, at 12:14 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3
years, it's pretty hard to get anything done without going to
meetings.
Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 08:17:07PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> > Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
> > Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years
>
> If the people with operational experience
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
> Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years
If the people with operational experience stop going, you can't blame the group
for
being full of vendors.
Methink
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3 years, it's
pretty hard to get anything done without going to meetings.
Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date, but not
so good for getting things changed.
That's
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,
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
On 23/04/2009, at 8:37 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22 apr 2009, at 23:39, Jack Bates wrote:
Serious input and participation means work and money.
You can participate on mailinglists without attending meetings, so
in that sense it doesn't have to cost money. As an operator, it
woul
On 22 apr 2009, at 23:39, Jack Bates wrote:
What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing
vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm
one of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other
vendors have just blown me off all together (
Jack Bates wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it
>> should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your
>> broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the
>> IPv6 will be routed without requi
On 23/04/2009, at 8:12 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it
should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your
broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and
the IPv6 will be
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What would have helped here is more push in this direction.
What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing
vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm one
of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other ve
Ron Bonica is leading a BOF during NANOG46 in Philly which may be of interest -
BOF: IETF OPS & MGMT Area,
Ron Bonica, Juniper Networks
Presentation Date: June 14, 2009, 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM
Abstract:
The IETF OPS & MGMT Area documents management technologies and
operational best common practices. T
On 22 apr 2009, at 22:12, Jack Bates wrote:
I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years
into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development
cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY
published?
That's certainly one way to loo
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it
should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your
broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the
IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user.
On 22 apr 2009, at 0:19, Owen DeLong wrote:
B) Again, while it might be the IETF's "job", shouldn't the group
trusted with the management of the IP space at least have a public
opinion about these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are
designed is such a way to guarantee maximum ado
18 matches
Mail list logo
