On Sep 26, 2011 6:58 AM, "George, Wes" <wesley.george@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
> To: Cameron Byrne
> Cc: IETF Discussion
>
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC
>
> Furthermore, I find this draft's statements about "we are trying real hard to deploy ipv6" as not convincing... we are 10 years in on v6, no? I only seriously deployed ipv6 when it was clear the business had to deploy ipv6.... there were no other choices.
>
> WEG] I really don’t think it’s useful to discuss penetration of “serious” IPv6 deployment based on absolute timescale for precisely that reason – until there’s a business reason, being visionary or leaders in the space doesn’t convince enough money to be shaken loose for that particular budget cycle or planning window. I think it’s more useful to look at the progress made since IANA exhaust actually happened and since some testing showed how bad CGN might be, signifying some idea of when this actually “got real” and at the next 12-18 months in terms of major last-mile providers and their rollout plans.
>
Agreed. The ietf is trying to help these companies have a business reason for ipv6, not a business reason for nat444
> ARIN is looking for the IETF to bless this because they know it's bad, they know this is a step in the wrong direction.... but the IETF made me do it...
>
> WEG] Well, no. ARIN is looking for the IETF to allocate this because they were told by the IAB that they couldn’t do it on their own, which sort of removes the teeth from the policy that their membership approved. I think that ARIN happened to be the first forum that the folks suggesting this (very much not new) idea found enough support to move it forward. That said, I don’t think that support for the idea is in any way specific to ARIN, it just came up at the right place and time. I think that more and more folks (myself included) are coming to the realization that the need is legitimate, and we sort of need to hold our noses and do it, and focus on making it less harmful rather than blocking it on philosophical grounds.
>
And the step before that is that the people who now call themselves ARIN were told no before in the IETF directly, afaik. So it's the same people, same logic, but now they come to the IETF with a different name, same request, and they expext a different answer?
Cb
> Wes George
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf