Ran,
it seems doubtful that it would be worthwhile for any of the
operators who have deployed NAT+PT to travel to an IETF for
the purpose of commenting in person.
There's also e-mail. And some of us in the IETF and the management
thereof do travel to operator meetings. But yes, understanding
what is needed, what the real problems are, and willing
customer participation are all necessary for the success of any
standardization effort.
Further, at the recent RIPE meeting in Amsterdam, there seemed
to be very broad operator feedback in the hallways that this NAT+PT
approach is the only viable transition strategy left available to
operators at this late date.
I believe we need to look at NAT+PT and get an
improved spec published. More generally, we need
to look again at the current situation on whether
we have all the transition tools that we need. Input
from the IAB has been given; the IESG has asked time
to be allocated for discussion of this topic in meetings;
a number of different proposals are being made and are being
discussed.
I recognize that some set of people believe NAT+PT is the
only viable strategy. I hope we get the spec done, but
I'm not sure the emphasis of NAT+PT as something that
will make or break transition is completely correct.
My personal opinion is more like that it is one tool for
a particular type of situations. A tool with its own
set of problems. Necessary, but not overemphasizing
its role would also be bad, IMHO.
Should we move the technical part of this discussion to
v6ops mailing list?
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf