North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

  • From: Fred Baker
  • Date: Thu Sep 27 17:44:30 2007
  • Authentication-results: sj-dkim-1; [email protected]; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
  • Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=351; t=1190928503; x=1191792503; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; [email protected]; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<[email protected]> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20WG=20Action=3A=20Conclusion=20of=20IP=20Version=206=2 0(ipv6) |Sender:=20; bh=1Hyl8eEOd4df7gkO5CZOg0x1Hes38iJhdY148TFj5vA=; b=jKxNht4anr1pg4lWBrDUNb12Mdy3fEQeL86L9z5Hd2nnuBnZcjpYuyk9X4DG9SkTHWWi41Bj zPq6gAjUfGkvm3Xgc7eSzUhwFf1QDRgnIB6xV/WAVqJcnTjV+FD+1I6E3kCyMbGqs5CdVwrGgT 7P4OtFq0is6DjLBBk4lTe1zS8=;


On Sep 27, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
there is a problem that the ivtf is dominated by the very vendors who are holding up deployment by incomplete, poorly performing, expensive to scale products. and adding complexity and features is not helping this either.

It's not like the operators aren't welcome. Change that.