he home and office, this data also has real
commercial value.
I suggest that as a technically aware organization, NANOG.org should not
be creating detailed spy dossiers on its members who read emails, and
then letting its subcontractor MailChimp sell or trade that info out
into the world.
John Gilmore
It is totally possible to turn off the spyware in MailChimp. You just
need to buy an actual commercial account rather than using their
"free" service. To save $13 or $20 per month, you are instead selling
the privacy of every recipient of your emails. See:
Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
> > > At some point, using publicly available NTP sources is redundant
> > > unless one wants to mitigate away the risks behind failure of the GPS
> > > system itself.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, 3:33 AM Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > Your assumption that public NTP
> I was also speaking specifically about installing GPS antennas in
> viable places, not using a facility-provided GPS or NTP service.
Am I confused? Getting the time over a multi-gigabit Internet from a
national time standard agency such as NIST (or your local country's
equivalent)
her and
with non-updated nodes." We'll add something like that to the next
version.
John Gilmore
IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project
Randy Bush wrote:
> it is a tragedy that cidr and an open market has helped us more than
> ipv6 has.
True.
Maybe cidr and an open market for ipv6 addresses would reduce the tragedy?
John
John Curran wrote:
> [challenges by legacy registrants] has been before judges and resolved
> numerous times.
>
> We’ve actually had the matter before many judges, and have never been
> ordered to do anything other than operate the registry per the number
> resource policy as developed by this
dship, so of course they brand themselves that way. But
in my opinion their power-seeking is self-serving, not community-serving.
John Gilmore
John Curran wrote:
> > We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
> > signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
Randy Bush wrote:
> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
Amen to that. ARIN's stance on legacy resources has traditionally been
that ARIN
Matthew Petach wrote:
> https://cacm.acm.org/news/257742-german-factory-fire-could-worsen-global-chip-shortage/fulltext
>
> That was the *sole* supplier of extreme ultraviolet lithography machines
> for every major chip manufacturer on the planet.
>
> Chip shortages will only get worse for the
Dave Taht wrote:
> > Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's more
> > like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"?
>
> Like, working on better software...
Like, deploying the other 300 million IPv4 addresses that are currently
lying around unused. They
Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
> our community also has to be cognizant about there being parts of the
> Internet which are not squatting on anyone's numbers *and* also are
> not contracted to a specific RIR.
Let's not undermine one of the few remaining widely distributed (with no
center)
Tom Beecher wrote:
> I'd be curious to see the data you guys have collected on what it has been
> confirmed to work on if that's available somewhere.
The Implementation Status of unicast 240/4 is in the Appendix of our draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> I think the advice in the draft, and on the quoted page of Google cloud
> docs is that you can use whatever address space you want for your voc
> network. I think it also says that choosing poorly could make portions if
> the internet unreachable.
>
> I don't see that
Tom Beecher wrote:
> > */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of 240/4 the
> > way you expect
>
> While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand waved that
> it's 'not that big a deal.', so I don't think he adequately grasps the
> scale of that challenge.
Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) via NANOG wrote:
> I'm personally fond of the IP-in-IP variation that filed in 20+ years
> ago as US patent 7,356,031.
No wonder -- you are listed as the co-inventor!
Just the fact that it is patented (and the patent is still unexpired)
would make it a disfavored
Michael Thomas wrote:
> There were tons of things that were slapped onto IP that were basically
> experimental like ARP and bootp. CIDR didn't even exist back then.
Speaking as one of the co-designers of BOOTP (RFC 951): yes, it was
experimental. So why was it "slapped onto" IP? Well, in
> > Let me say that again. Among all the reasons why IPv6 didn't take
> > over the world, NONE of them is "because we spent all our time
> > improving IPv4 standards instead".
>
> I'll somewhat call bullshit on this conclusion from the data
> available. True, none of the reasons directly claim
rld, NONE of them is "because we spent all our time
improving IPv4 standards instead".
John Gilmore
John Levine wrote:
> FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be
> useful it would require that every host on the Internet update its
> network stack, which would take on the order of a decade...
Those network stacks were updated for 240/4 in 2008-2009 -- a decade
ago.
tomers, and before 2025) by its
convoluted license:
https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
I recommend using something that doesn't have litigious companies
nitpicking about what you can and can't use it for.
John Gilmore
4.ripe-transfer.pdf
The process is more bureaucratic and cumbersome than you expect;
Europeans named bureacracy in the 1800s, and RIPE has raised it to a
painful art. But once it's done, you are out from under the ARIN
anti-legacy mentality forever.
John Gilmore
PS: If you want RPKI, w
Michael Thomas wrote:
> > What do you mean 3rd Tier?
> General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Broadband_Radio_Service
it has 3 tiers:
* Incumbent access, primarily government and military radars, plus some
pre-existing
Eliot Lear wrote:
> In 2008, Vince Fuller, Dave Meyer, and I put together
> draft-fuller-240space, and we presented it to the IETF. There were
> definitely people who thought we should just try to get to v6, but
> what really stopped us was a point that Dave Thaler made: unintended
> impact on
J. Hellenthal wrote:
> FreeBSD operators have been using this space for quite a long time for
> many NAT'ing reasons including firewalls and other services behind
> them for jail routing and such.
>
> https://dan.langille.org/2013/12/29/freebsd-jails-on-non-routable-ip-addresses/
>
> That's just
David Conrad wrote:
> Doesn't this presume the redeployed addresses would be allocated
> via a market rather than via the RIRs?
>
> If so, who would receive the money?
You ask great questions.
The community can and should do the engineering to extend the IP
implementations. If that doesn't
Fred Baker wrote:
> I tend to think that if we can somehow bless a prefix and make be
> global unicast address space, it needs to become Global Unicast
> Address Space.
Yes, I agree. The intention is that with the passage of time, each
prefix becomes more and more reachable, til it's as close
=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson wrote:
> The only viable future is to convert [to IPv6]. This is not
> group-think, it is simple math.
OK. And in the long run, we are all dead. That is not group-think, it
is simple math. Yet that's not a good argument for deciding not to
improve our lives
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> consider three hosts on a broadcast domain: A, B and
>> C. A uses the lowest address, B accepts a lowest address, but C does
>> not. Then A can talk to B, B can talk to C, but C cannot talk to A.
>> This does not seem to be addressed in the draft.
Section
Joe Maimon wrote:
> And all thats needed to be done is to drop this ridiculous .0 for
> broadcast compatibility from standards.why is this even controversial?
Not to put words in his mouth, but that's how original BSD maintainer
Mike Karels seemed to feel when we raised this issue for
Randy Bush wrote:
> as a measurement kinda person, i wonder if anyone has looked at how much
> progress has been made on getting hard coded dependencies on D, E, 127,
> ... out of the firmware in all networked devices.
The drafts each have an Implementation Status section that describes
what we
Fred Baker wrote:
> My observation has been that people don't want to extend the life of
> IPv4 per se; people want to keep using it for another very short time
> interval and then blame someone else for the fact that the 32 bit
> integers are a finite set.
It's an attractive strawman, but
Steven Bakker wrote:
> The ask is to update every ip stack in the world (including validation,
> equipment retirement, reconfiguration, etc)...
This raises a great question.
Is it even *doable*? What's the *risk*? What will it *cost* to upgrade
every node on the Internet? And *how long*
Steven Bakker wrote:
> > ... the gain is 4 weeks of
> > extra ip address space in terms of estimated consumption.
>
> The burn rate is the best argument I've seen against the idea so far.
I'm glad you think so, since it's easy to refute.
There will be no future free-for-all that burns through
34 matches
Mail list logo
