North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
On 15 feb 2006, at 11.51, Daniel Roesen wrote:
I think YOUR problem is that the chairs in an IETF WG gathers consensus of the members.That is one of the reasons we did the NANOG 35 IPv6 multihoming BOF (and are doing the same at the upcoming apricot meeting).Which is a good thing. But still, many IETF folks deny the fact that they constantly hear that things like shim6 is NOT what the ops folks (the folks that have to actually work with the stuff IETF brings forward) are looking for.
Additionally I would like to point out that on shim6 specifically I also meets representatives of fairly large providers that see new opportunities with shim6 or id/loc split solutions. To Dave's point that there are people "in IETF" that don't think there is an operator community I would like to add that there certainly is an operator community but their views are not homogenous. And neither is any other groups. Which makes the job of any IETF WG chair to judge consensus among the representatives in a particular WG to do just that, gather consensus and move forward.
And we know that it doesn't. It can't.I would like to argue that TE in the general case is orthogonal to upstream/downstream/peering. I am not clear if you are trying to voice concern that you can not do TE, or that shim6 will not give you the ability to control how your customers does TE, or something else.
- kurtis -