[LAC-TF] Fwd: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning
fgont at si6networks.com
Tue Nov 12 00:04:38 -02 2019
En este momento se está preguntando al v6ops si hay apoyo al trabajo que
presenté en la pasada reunion de LACNOG.
El trabajo está constituido por dos drafts:
Este es un tema que afecta a los operadores directamente.
Quienes deseen apoyar este trabajo con el fin de solucionar los
problemas discutidos, por favor expresen su opinion en la lista del
v6ops wg de IETF (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops).
Saludos cordiales, y gracias!
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:48:21 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops at ietf.org>
I support working group adoption of both drafts.
Fernando has done an excellent job of capturing the issues at hand and
several common sense and rational improvements that could help to
Further, the reception and comments on the drafts in the context of the
NANOG mailing list, while perhaps not “admissible” as WG support should
be viewed as input from the operational community to the greatest extent
possible under IETF policies and procedures.
As you may well know, participation in the IETF by operators has long
been a difficult road. First, the IETF core and Operators often have
quite opposing points of view on what is needed for a network. Operators
often have little understanding of what is required to develop silicon
solutions, fast forwarding, an the software to support it. Conversely,
vendors and others in the IETF often have very limited perspective on
the day to day realities of operating an ISP or other significant
Both sides would benefit from extensive effort to listen to each other
in a meaningful way as the combined expertise is required to produce
useful solutions. Unfortunately, operators that attempt participation in
IETF are often met with vitriolic comments such that only the thickest
of skins are able to remain long enough to make significant contributions.
Sadly, the same is true of what happens to engineers who poke their
heads into operational fora.
We can all do better in this area.
> On Nov 11, 2019, at 03:19 , Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/19 21:50, Fred Baker wrote:
>> As I have said before, I am looking for supportive comment on the mailing list of your drafts.
> we never asked that question. Some folks have gone ahead and expressed
> support of the drafts. However, as authors we just asked for feedback on
> the document(s) -- and that's what most of the discussion has been about.
>> I saw that you sent a note to Nanog, and some replied copying the v6ops list.
>> At the meeting a week or so hence, I have put you on the agenda to discuss your drafts. If you don't plan to be in Singapore, that's your choice; you can be on MeetEcho. But I *would* like for you to discuss your drafts with the working group. As we usually do, I'll take a hum of those there, and if there is support, I'll put out an email to the larger list, and folks can express their support or lack thereof.
>> I asked you a specific question in the email you are replying to. Would you consider answering it?
> The email I replied to was your post of the status of several drafts
> (hence the subject of this email). There was no question in the email,
> nor in the attachment.
> So... what's the question that you asked, and where did you ask it?
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops at ietf.org
v6ops mailing list
v6ops at ietf.org
More information about the LACTF