Re: Network Operator's input

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Philip,

Le 29/04/2019 à 20:31, Philip Homburg a écrit :
>> I think that the objectors have been rather few, have been unreasonably loud
>> and very repetitive.
> 
> Here is the opinion of operators at the RIPE meeting last fall:
> https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2335/
> Reactions at 5:38
> 
> Of course in true tradition of the IETF, operator input is mostly ignored.

I am not sure whether this is a sarcasm.  If it is, this is what I think:

For me, Operator input is highly valuable in many contexts, since the 
Internet sheer size is mostly covered by Network Operators.  But not in 
all contexts.

There are IPv6 contexts in which there are no operators in the ISP 
sense.  Yet there are people who run the networks in these ISP-less IPv6 
contexts.

For example, there are very little, if incumbent, operators in vehicular 
networks.  Another example is the IETF network where the operator is, 
err, I dont know, but surely not an ISP.

In that sense, I do appreciate if IETF has tradition that takes 
operator's input as much as other input.

This opinion is about operators input and IPv6.  This opinion is not 
about this draft.

Alex

> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>