NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

[william.allen.simpson at gmail.com (William Allen Simpson)]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's 
> hard to undo that. ....
> 
That's an understatement.


> Also don't expect too much from IETF participation: if doing X is going 
> to make a vendor more money than doing Y, they're going to favor X, even 
> if Y is the superior solution.
> 
Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
Victory). ;-)  I haven't bothered to go in years....