On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, M�ns Nilsson wrote: > > The IETF has successfully driven out most of the network managers, and > > now the remaining developers are trying to dictate how networks get run > > by removing the tools that people really use. [...] > I am talking to a lot of friends in the operations community these days, to > make them aware of this consensus call, and have them say their meaning. > Without exception their assessment of SL can be summarised to "OUTRAGEOUSLY > UGLY". > > So, I'm glad that you call on the operator community, but I think you will > be surprised at what they say.
I support you all the way, but in all fairness, there is likely a huge disconnect between "operators who are doing the right thing" (I hope I am at least: we don't do any NAT etc.) and "operators who like doing the wrong thing" or "operators who are forced to doing the wrong thing for whatever reasons". (It is not useful to use the words "right" and "wrong" about NAT's and what have you here but I use them for simplicity and brevity.) So, in a sense it would also be good to get feedback from ops folk of the latter categories. Those do exist, but I assume *they* are ones that are more rarely seen at the IETF (but also probably those who do not heed what IETF says in any case). But regardless, it's still the question of doing it right rather than "doing it the IPv4 way". -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
