On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 06:48:25PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 23-sep-2005, at 17:06, David Meyer wrote: > > > The IAB has proposed the below BOF for the upcoming NANOG > > That's nice, but... > > >The purpose of this BOF for the IAB is to solicit operator > >feedback on the progress and direction of IPv6 multi-homing work, > >particularly as discussed in the IETF, and to help the IAB > >determine if there is meaningful work that it can do or can > >signal to the appropriate IETF WGs to address any problem(s) that > >may be perceived with the current direction. > > NANOG = network operators in the sense of ISPs and the like. The > solution that the shim6 is working on does NOT apply to this > demographic. Understand your concern. However, as you know there are many network operators who do have an interest. There are also many enterprise folks who attend NANOG, and they also have expressed interest/opinions. > Not long ago, there was heavy opposition on the NANOG list against > unique local addresses in IPv6, which is also something that doesn't > impact ISPs. I seem to remember there were also NANOGers argueing for > keeping AS numbers 16 bits, but I can't find these posts, so maybe > I'm misremembering. > > I urge the discussion leaders to make it painfully clear to which > types of users the shim6 solution space applies and to which type of > users it doesn't. Well taken, and yes, the shim6 context will be clearly laid out. > >Minimally, notes > >of the session will be posted for those unable to attend the > >discussion in person. > > NANOG meetings tend to have streaming video. That would be nice for > this BOF too. Good suggestion. I'm not sure what the standard NANOG BOF gets in terms of A/V, but I will ask the NANOG PC/engineering support staff what is available. Thanks again for the comments, Dave
Attachment:
pgpXu01cEUphg.pgp
Description: PGP signature