Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sander,

Sorry not to get back to you sooner.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 00:33, Sander Steffann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> >> Here is the opinion of operators at the RIPE meeting last fall:
> >> https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2335/
> >> Reactions at 5:38
> >
> > How many have read the draft?
> >
> > Should they be making judgement and we accept judgement based on a short and single presentation by somebody who has a bias against it?
>
> I gave that presentation after discussing it with Ole to provide some sort of feedback on this draft from the operator community. I presented both the benefits and the dangers. Yes, I am personally against this draft, but I gave an honest representation of both sides.
>

I think the one thing missing from the presentation was a statement of
what sorts of numbers of hosts likely attached to a link where
link-layer broadcast volume may become a consideration or concern.
That would have better set the context for the problem trying to be
solved.


> I haven't seen any active outreach from the IETF, and the operators who do speak up here are often ignored as "single voices" that don't represent the operators, and when someone goes out and tries to get broader feedback its biased. All of this makes it very difficult for operators to deal with the IETF, and I know many who have given up.
>

So I was indirectly hoping to encourage more operators to participate
with this presentation at the 2015 AusNOG conference.

"Why you should read RFCs and Internet Drafts (and what you need to
know to do so)"
http://www.ausnog.net/sites/default/files/ausnog-2015/presentations/1.4_Mark_Smith_AusNOG2015.pdf


I wonder what an operator who tries to participate in the IETF expects?


Regards,
Mark.




> If you have a better way of getting a feel for operator support I am all ears.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>