Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning

Owen DeLong <> Tue, 12 November 2019 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2534F1208BA for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:50:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eNOa881JZlEL for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329FB120143 for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:50:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:5]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xAC0mLMv017646 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:48:25 -0800
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 xAC0mLMv017646
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mail; t=1573519710; bh=7EjpPN5fWTkZCNWxK2tJkG+Z5EidmXarAqt3sdvcCj0=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=rgTfw3MBTxbfTwbH62/yFLH6/FIX0s3cMzEE6lH78eOrNfB9g59OznpDm/APWtPXP Hkm8Do2oDm+XY1/HPyfr71jcpJjrxiu52Dt01KybTmA+BzFDHnuAZ46Ywl/SYq54kr vMRKhtsSvlo/Yvf2ZotT0a2064XrFvGNxDbPnkPg=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Owen DeLong <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:48:21 -0800
Cc: Fred Baker <>, IPv6 Operations <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Fernando Gont <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 ( [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:48:30 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:50:41 -0000


I support working group adoption of both drafts.

Fernando has done an excellent job of capturing the issues at hand and several common sense and rational improvements that could help to mitigate them.

Further, the reception and comments on the drafts in the context of the NANOG mailing list, while perhaps not “admissible” as WG support should be viewed as input from the operational community to the greatest extent possible under IETF policies and procedures.

As you may well know, participation in the IETF by operators has long been a difficult road. First, the IETF core and Operators often have quite opposing points of view on what is needed for a network. Operators often have little understanding of what is required to develop silicon solutions, fast forwarding, an the software to support it. Conversely, vendors and others in the IETF often have very limited perspective on the day to day realities of operating an ISP or other significant internet operation.

Both sides would benefit from extensive effort to listen to each other in a meaningful way as the combined expertise is required to produce useful solutions. Unfortunately, operators that attempt participation in IETF are often met with vitriolic comments such that only the thickest of skins are able to remain long enough to make significant contributions.

Sadly, the same is true of what happens to engineers who poke their heads into operational fora.

We can all do better in this area.


> On Nov 11, 2019, at 03:19 , Fernando Gont <> wrote:
> Fred,
> On 9/11/19 21:50, Fred Baker wrote:
>> As I have said before, I am looking for supportive comment on the mailing list of your drafts. 
> we never asked that question. Some folks have gone ahead and expressed
> support of the drafts. However, as authors we just asked for feedback on
> the document(s) -- and that's what most of the discussion has been about.
>> I saw that you sent a note to Nanog, and some replied copying the v6ops list.
>> At the meeting a week or so hence, I have put you on the agenda to discuss your drafts. If you don't plan to be in Singapore, that's your choice; you can be on MeetEcho. But I *would* like for you to discuss your drafts with the working group. As we usually do, I'll take a hum of those there, and if there is support, I'll put out an email to the larger list, and folks can express their support or lack thereof.
>> I asked you a specific question in the email you are replying to. Would you consider answering it?
> The email I replied to was your post of the status of several drafts
> (hence the subject of this email). There was no question in the email,
> nor in the attachment.
> So... what's the question that you asked, and where did you ask it?
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail:
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list