[ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:47:29AM -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the  
> meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past
> few years and we needed the largest meeting room available.

Which might not be *so* contradictory in the end.

If we consider IPv6 to be "the mainstream Internet" in the future, the
IPv6 content will sort of naturally move to "the plenary" (because that's
what we all should be interested in, no?).  If that happens, the question
"what remains to be specifically discussed inside the IPv6 WG" is a 
valid one.

I don't think that this is a very realistic scenario for the next few years, 
though - and I expect lots of "IPv4 centric" talk in the plenary.  Like
"how can I make my NAT devices scale?" and "how can I make my users stop
hating me for NATting to death all their connections"... :-)


OTOH, maybe we should create an IPv4 WG (and an IPX WG) for those still 
stuck with last century's legacy networking protocols.

half-seriously,

Gert Doering
        -- myself
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279