On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> It would be nice to convene a summit of operators (at RIPE or NANOG) >>> and describe the various mechanisms and rather than ask them which one >>> they like, >>> ask them which one they would *NEVER* consider. That might reduce the >>> field by half... > >> I don't think that's practical—they might all vote for a protocol that >> they wind up not wanting to deploy. The models that are under > > That's why I wouldn't ask them to pick a winner, but rather to pick the loser. > >> consideration actually have running code and some operational >> experience behind them. So asking operators to decide based on a >> feature list or something of that sort is not a good idea. What we >> really want is for operators who have realistic intentions of deploying >> this stuff to weigh in. And they are doing so, in the working group, >> so we don't really need to go to RIPE or NANOG to get this feedback. > > a) I'm not convinced the operators we have are very representative of the > whole. It is not, but a number of the operators who do participate *try* and represent the industry, and not just their employer. A well known issue is the lack of operator involvement in the IETF. In general operators are focused on solving issues *today* - much of the work in the IETF is viewed as much further out and / or detached from the operational real world. A number of things have reinforced this view, especially some of the v6 zealotry and unwillingness to listen to what the operators actually want (see the DHCP discussions and extension / fragment discussions). Just because it works fine in IPv4 is *not* actually a good reason to change it in IPv6... Very rough stats: NANOG has ~690 attendees (Phoenix), RIPE has ~570 (Dublin), APRICOT ~725 (Singapore), lacnic20 and ~291 and MENOG ~95. I was not easily able to find the attendee list for other NOGS (like PacNOG, Afrinic, etc.) There are around 1100 organizations represented (the list formats were not identical, some folk spell their organization names differently, do you count Globenet and Globenet/Brasil as one organization or two?) > (But those that show up at a NOG might not be either. sadly) Yup. But it *is* much more representative... > > b) I'm more interested in reasons operators who are not deploying anything, > have for not wanting to. > > I'll bet if we had a single IPv4 over IPv6 solution which had a clear > operating cost savings over Dual-Stack, and also over IPv4-only+CGN, that > we'd be at universal deployment of IPv6 already. > > I don't really understand why we have so many mechanisms... Perhaps we could > have an IAB plenary presentation on it... or maybe someone could do an ISOC > video like Kathleen did for MILE. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works > > -- Eagles soar but a weasel will never get sucked into a jet engine
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail