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

[tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks)]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Manish Karir wrote:

>
>
> Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long
> mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010?
> The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this
> would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all
> sorts of help and interest from the ietf to put together.
> Perhaps the NANOG SC can try to figure out if there is
> sufficient interest in this and what this should consist
> of?

People probably know this, but just in case...

If there is interest in organizing a joint meeting during an IETF, the  
person to contact with logistical concerns (getting a room or rooms,  
etc.) would
be the IAD, Ray Pelletier, <iad at ietf.org>; I would also cc the IAOC, <iaoc at ietf.org 
 > .

To coordinate technical concerns, I would start with either the IETF  
Chair, Russ Housley, <chair at ietf.org>,
or the OPS area ADs, Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica (see http://www.ietf.org/IESGmems.html 
  ).

Regards
Marshall

>
>
> -manish
>
>
>
> -------
>>  * From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
>>  * Date: Thu Apr 23 10:37:12 2009
>>
>>  * List-archive: <http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/nanog>
>>  * List-help: <mailto:nanog-request at nanog.org?subject=help>
>>  * List-id: North American Network Operators Group <nanog.nanog.org>
>>  * List-post: <mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
>>  * List-subscribe: ><http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> nanog>,<mailto:nanog-request at nanog.org?subject=subscribe>
>>  * List-unsubscribe: ><http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog 
>> >,<mailto:nanog-request at nanog.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should  
>> represent
>>  at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group.
>>  That would be how change is brought about in a participative  
>> organisation,
>>  no? :)
>>
>> Why don't you start by simpling stating what you want to have happen?
>>
>> So far I've seen a number of messages complaining about the IETF  
>> (btw, if you like complaining about the IETF, go to >the meetings,  
>> there is significant time set aside for that there) but not a  
>> single technical request, remark or >observation.
>>
>
>> The IETF works by rough consensus. That means if people disagree,  
>> nothing much happens. That is annoying. But a lot of >good work  
>> gets done when people agree, and a lot of the time good technical  
>> arguments help.
>>
>> Like I said, the IETF really wants input from operators. Why not  
>> start by giving some?
>
>

Regards
Marshall Eubanks
CEO / AmericaFree.TV