Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-23 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
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

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-23 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
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

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-23 Thread William Allen Simpson
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,

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-23 Thread Pekka Savola
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.

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-23 Thread Adrian Chadd
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. Methinks

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-23 Thread bmanning
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 stop

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-23 Thread Nathan Ward
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,

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-23 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
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

NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-22 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
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

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-22 Thread Jack Bates
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.

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-22 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
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

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-22 Thread Ren Provo
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.

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-22 Thread Jack Bates
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

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-22 Thread Nathan Ward
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

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re impacting revenue]

2009-04-22 Thread Joel Jaeggli
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 requiring