On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:29 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> 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.
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 <b...@herrin.us> 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
<ayc...@avinta.com> 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://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"<jo...@iecc.com> <mailto:jo...@iecc.com>
To:nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re:
202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
Message-ID:<20220308203237.53e7038b1...@ary.qy>
<mailto:20220308203237.53e7038b1...@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
It appears that Anne Mitchell<amitch...@isipp.com>
<mailto:amitch...@isipp.com> said:
Cc: NANOG<nanog@nanog.org> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>, Greg Skinner<gregskinn...@icloud.com>
<mailto:gregskinn...@icloud.com>, "Karandikar, Abhay"<direc...@iitk.ac.in>
<mailto:direc...@iitk.ac.in>, Rama Ati
<rama_...@outlook.com> <mailto:rama_...@outlook.com>, Bob Corner GMAIL<bobbiecor...@gmail.com>
<mailto:bobbiecor...@gmail.com>, "Hsing, T. Russell"<ths...@ieee.org> <mailto:ths...@ieee.org>,
"Chen, Henry C.J."
<hcjc...@avinta.com> <mailto:hcjc...@avinta.com>, ST Hsieh<uschinae...@gmail.com>
<mailto:uschinae...@gmail.com>, "Chen, Abraham Y."<ayc...@alum.mit.edu>
<mailto:ayc...@alum.mit.edu>
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<b...@herrin.us> <mailto:b...@herrin.us>
To: John Levine<jo...@iecc.com> <mailto:jo...@iecc.com>
Cc:"nanog@nanog.org" <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> <nanog@nanog.org>
<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
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>
<mailto: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<jo...@iecc.com>
<mailto:jo...@iecc.com> 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 Herrin b...@herrin.us 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>
--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
<https://bill.herrin.us/>
https://bill.herrin.us/
--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
<https://bill.herrin.us/>
https://bill.herrin.us/
