North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: shim6 vs nanog

  • From: John Payne
  • Date: Sat Oct 15 01:27:22 2005

On Oct 15, 2005, at 12:32 AM, [email protected] 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?