240/4 is tainted. The fact that some code exist somewhere to
make it work is good, but the reality is that there are tons
of equipment that do not support it.
If you believe that, then don't use it.
But don't dictate to me and everyone else what we can and cannot use in
our networks. If
I'm trying to avoid setting the expectation that 240/4 is
just a simple extension to 10/8 and thus people should use it
*today* when they run out of space in RFC1918.
I don't believe you.
If you were really trying to avoid setting the expectation then you
would be communicating with the
An interesting tidbit of information:
While traveling home via phx last night their free wireless was using
1.1.1.1 as the web auth portal. Perhaps this means that 1/8 is tainted
as well?
Jared Mauch
On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you were really trying to
Or say, lots of processing somewhere short term - like video
editing/rendering/whatever at the Olympic games.
Rendering maybe, but editing needs human space...
http://www.confidencebay.com
--chuck
On 10/17/07 3:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
240/4 is tainted. The fact that some code exist somewhere to
make it work is good, but the reality is that there are tons
of equipment that do not support it.
If you believe that, then don't use it.
But don't dictate
On 16 Oct 2007, at 09:42, Randy Bush wrote:
my first thought on how to use it revolved around the idea that the
devices inside my site are more diverse than those on the transit
internet. therefore, if i can use 240/4 internally, certainly we will
all be able to transit it. where this died
On 15 Oct 2007, at 03:49, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 15-okt-2007, at 7:09, Bradley Urberg Carlson wrote:
There is a customer's customer who is advertising more-specifics
at the IX (and using a different source AS, to boot). I can think
of a couple ways to prevent hearing these, but
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 15:20 -0700, chuck goolsbee wrote:
Or say, lots of processing somewhere short term - like video
editing/rendering/whatever at the Olympic games.
Rendering maybe, but editing needs human space...
Not even rendering... streaming it back to your established production
the other point as was mentioned later in the thread is that
this buys you very little in terms of time before v4 is gone.
On average, it buys everybody very little time. But that assumes that
240/4 is being released as a general solution for everybody.
This is not the case. We want to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:41:39 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is not the case. We want to release 240/4 as a solution for those
organizations that are in a position to control enough variables to make
it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of time,
maybe even years.
What ever happened to pushing on the traditional class A owners to free up
their address space?
I can't help but think that the issue has always been mis management of the
early assigned address blocks. Look at Nortel's block for instance... How many
addresses are actually reachable directly
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We want to release 240/4 as a solution for those
organizations that are in a position to control enough variables to
make
it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of
Asking the whole internet to support 240/4 is going to tie up
valuable resources that would be far better off working on IPv6. Keep
in mind that it's not just software patches. Software vendors don't do
stuff for free. I doubt ISPs are going to pay huge amounts of money to
support a
bureaucratic roadblock. ARIN's failure to allocate 240/4 space to
THOSE WHO DESIRE IT is a bureaucratic roadblock. IETF's failure to
un-reserve
240/4 space is a bureaucratic roadblock.
If you use this stuff internally and don't tell anybody about
it and nobody ever know, you're
Thanks for the suggestions.
On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
well.. the problem of course is that you pull in the traffic from the
aggregate transit prefix which costs you $$$ but then you offload it
to the customer via a peering link for which you are not being paid
A
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
unfortunately i think this is a non-started for all except private
deployments
the other point as was mentioned later in the thread is that this buys
you very little in terms of time before v4 is gone.
I can see a reasonable amount of demand for 240/4 with carriers in
On 10/16/07, Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:03:36PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
At 60 votes, that's .6% participation. If we don't hit at least 2, we
ought to seriously consider disbanding the current evolution.
If that means the disbanding of
Sean Figgins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've hit the nail on the head. Is there any way that the NANOG mailing
list can prevent such unwanted mail between two users?
Actually, yes there is.
This is using a hammer to swat a fly. Not only is it not the right tool,
but it's far
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Lynda wrote:
I'm on a couple of lists where the reply-to header is munged in just
this way. I hate it. I much prefer the extra effort that says to send to
the list, rather than constantly checking to make sure that a private
message is not being sent to the list by
19 matches
Mail list logo
