Mr. Chen: Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most inconsiderate.
In addition, I respectfully encourage you to trim the recipients to just the mailnig list and the specific individual to whom you are sending a reply. Thanks, Bill Herrin On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:19 AM William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > Mr. Chen: > > Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp > every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most > inconsiderate. > > Thanks, > Bill Herrin > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:09 AM Abraham Y. Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear John: >> >> 1) Thanks for your comment on how eMail headers could be used. >> >> Dear Bill: >> >> 2) I am glad that you agree that it should be a viable discussion on >> making use of the 240/4 netblock, while waiting for IPv6 to deliver its >> promises. >> >> 3) As to your question about where does IPv6 stand today and where is >> it heading, I like to highlight a recent APNIC blog that you may have read. >> It also appeared on CircleID. After a long recount of the history, the >> author seems to hint that 1995 may be the new starting point for looking >> forward. >> >> >> https://blog.apnic.net/2022/02/21/another-year-of-the-transition-to-ipv6/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=apnic-blog-weekly-wrap_4 >> >> >> >> https://circleid.com/posts/20220220-another-year-of-the-transition-to-ipv6 >> >> 4) We fully realize that the EzIP approach is quite unorthodox. As >> such, we received numerous quick criticisms in the past. With the proposal >> now put together, we do hope colleagues on this list will take the time >> to review its specifics. I look forward to comments and critiques on its >> merits. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Abe (2022-03-09 12:08) >> >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: 8 Mar 2022 15:32:36 -0500 >> From: "John Levine" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: >> 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> It appears that Anne Mitchell <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> said: >> >> Cc: NANOG <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Greg Skinner >> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, "Karandikar, Abhay" >> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Rama Ati >> >> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Bob Corner GMAIL >> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, "Hsing, T. Russell" >> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, "Chen, Henry C.J."<[email protected]> >> <[email protected]>, ST Hsieh <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]>, "Chen, Abraham Y." <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> >> >> This is a whole lot of cc:s to people who aren't even part of this >> group/list. One wonders with this many cc:s, how many bcc:s there also >> were, and to whom. >> >> There are several thousand people on the NANOG list, and public web >> archives. I don't think this >> is a useful question. >> >> 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, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or >> two. It's basically >> the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6. >> >> R's, >> John >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 13:11:58 -0800 >> From: William Herrin <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> To: John Levine <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: >> 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) >> Message-ID: >> <CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=vv0bqpg4+arw0pxhcqhh7rccrxv...@mail.gmail.com> >> <CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=vv0bqpg4+arw0pxhcqhh7rccrxv...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> 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, >> >> Hi John, >> >> That's incorrect and obviously so. While repurposing 240/4 as general >> purpose Internet addresses might require that level of effort, other >> uses such as local LAN addressing would only require the equipment on >> that one lan to be updated -- a much more attainable goal. >> >> Reallocating 240/4 as unpurposed unicast address space would allow >> some standards-compliant uses to become practical before others. A few >> quite quickly. >> >> >> >> which would take on the order of >> a decade, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or >> two. It's basically >> the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6. >> >> Is it not past time we admit that we have no real idea what the >> schedule or level of effort will be for making IPv6 ubiquitous? This >> year it was more than last year and next year it'll probably be more >> than this year. The more precise predictions all seem to have fallen >> flat. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William [email protected]https://bill.herrin.us/ >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> >> Virus-free. >> www.avast.com >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> >> <#m_1889185439734392099_m_-9011500040057407468_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> > > > -- > William Herrin > [email protected] > <https://bill.herrin.us/> > https://bill.herrin.us/ > -- William Herrin [email protected] <https://bill.herrin.us/> https://bill.herrin.us/
