On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi all, > > Without entering in the discussion of anyone being right or wrong, I will > like to ask that this thread, which I don't think will bring us to anything > good, is discontinued unless we are going to talk about the real initial > subject. I thought the experimental stage was concluded with the issuance of 2001:: addresses, marked "production," as opposed to 3ffe:: addresses, which were for experimental 6bone "testing purposes. Thanks Jordi, Scott > > A discussion about IPv6 being experimental or not, could be productive in my > opinion, but if we follow the appropriate behavior in the list. > > So far, if is a test or not using it at the IETF servers is a good example, > but actually I think is clear that this will only happen once the contract > with the organization holding the secretariat is fixed, as Brian suggested > in the plenary. I'm sure the IAD will take in consideration our inputs on > this for the new contract. > > Regards, > Jordi, acting as "sergeant at arms" > > > > > > De: shogunx <shogunx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > > Fecha: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:57:54 -0400 (EDT) > > Para: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > CC: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx>, IETF General Discussion Mailing > > List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > Asunto: Re: "IETF servers aren't for testing" > > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > >> Thanks for confirming that you have totally missed what the IASA process > >> was all about. > > > > Thank you for confirming that the IETF has become totally mired in > > beuracratic waste. > > > >> > >> This community has a number of people who wish to say how things need to be > >> done - whether it is meeting location, IPv6 or cookies during the breaks - > > > > Re: ipv6... the goal is connectivity, not the source or methodology > > of such. a workable solution is present TODAY. > > > > Re: cookies during breaks... seems like i remember hearing you spout off > > at a pleanary a few years ago that $50,000 or so was spent on cookies > > because "I like cookies." Good waste of funds that could be made > > productive to suit your personal desires. Where I am from we call that > > abuse of power. > > > > Re: meeting locations... one can only light up minneapolis so many times. > > > > Harald, you are not the dictator of the IETF. The community speaks for > > itself, with or (hopefully) without you. Jon Postel is laughing at you > > from his grave. > > > >> while absolutely refusing to spend any thought cycles whatsoever trying to > >> find out how this organization is actually put together, > > > > Hmm... IASA turns up exactly nothing of relavence on google, which in > > effect makes its relavence to this discussion, or the IETF, exactly... > > none. > > > >> who will have to > >> make the decisions to implement their wishes, and who those people are > >> accountable to. > >> > >> You have thoroughly confirmed that you are among that group. > >> > > > > And you have confirmed your self serving attitute. Go have yourself > > another mocha frappe crappe latte with extra cookies and indulge in a few > > more personal attacks on those of us actually trying to make progress > > before the sun goes supernova. You can't win on the technical argument so > > you choose a completely irrelavent personal attack. Love your hair, hope > > you win, NEXT! > > > > Scott > > > >> Harald > >> > >> --On lørdag, august 06, 2005 13:17:47 -0400 shogunx > >> <shogunx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > >>> > >>>> Once the IETF web services are operated under a contract with the IASA, > >>>> and that contract contains text like "these servers must be reachable via > >>>> IPv4", I think it is a very reasonable idea for the IETF Administrative > >>>> Director to ask the company providing this service under contract what > >>>> they would charge extra in order to change that line in their contract > >>>> to "IPv4 and IPv6". > >>>> > >>>> At the moment, remember, the IETF's webservers are provided by a company > >>>> that is under no formal obligation to do anything requested by the IETF > >>>> community; > >>> > >>> That is a fundamental imbalance in the order of things. > >>> > >>>> they have chosen for reasons that seem good to them to continue > >>>> not offering IPv6 access to the IETF servers, presumably because they > >>>> think that some of the other things we have asked them to do take > >>>> priority. > >>>> > >>>> I think IPv6 can wait until we have the formalities straight. > >>> > >>> With all due respect, thats bu%^sh$t. The IETF needs no outside provider > >>> to provided the desired level of connectivity. I have had redundant /48's > >>> routed to my internal networks for almost 2 years, both 6bone addressing > >>> and production addresses, and my upstream bandwidth providers haven't even > >>> heard of v6. Thurn on the tunnel and get it over with, sans the > >>> beauracracy that is crippling this organization. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Harald > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Ietf mailing list > >>>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >>>> > >>> > >>> sleekfreak pirate broadcast > >>> http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ietf mailing list > >>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > sleekfreak pirate broadcast > > http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf