Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

2022-03-09 Thread Abraham Y. Chen 

Dear Mel & Bill:

0)    Thank you for your kind advice.

1)    To be honest, I am a bit of lost with multiple comments about my 
eMail Header at the same time. Especially, some seem not in agreement 
with the other. Rather than opening up a discussion thread, such as 
"eMail Header Rules" that for sure will distract us from the real topic 
on the table, I have sent a request to Valerie Wittkop (Program 
Director) for a copy of the "official" rules for me to follow.


Regards,


Abe (2022-03-09 23:13)


On 2022-03-09 14:23, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:

On 2022-03-09 13:16, Mel Beckman wrote:
Alternatively, just use BCC. There is no reason for you to tell us 
who else you want to hear what you say. There’s nothing wrong with 
CCing, and nothing in the rules against it, but your recipients may 
not appreciate you distributing their email addresses on this list, 
to which they are not a member.


 -mel beckman


On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:29 AM, William Herrin  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  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
 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_medium=email_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"  
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>  

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

It appears that Anne Mitchell  
  said:


Cc: NANOG  , Greg Skinner  
, "Karandikar, Abhay"  
, Rama Ati

  , Bob Corner GMAIL  
, "Hsing, T. Russell"  , 
"Chen, Henry C.J."
  , ST Hsieh  
, "Chen, Abraham Y."  

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  
To: John Levine

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

2022-03-09 Thread Mel Beckman 
Also, Mr. Chen, if your intent is to give your CC recipients copies of our 
discussions on this board, please note that I for one will be deleting any 
additional emails you CC. I do not want to disclose to others what I say on 
this list. If they want to find out, let them use the online archive, like 
every other non subscriber.

None of this has anything to bear on your proposal’s technical merits, for 
which I have no opinion.

 -mel beckman

On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:19 AM, Mel Beckman  wrote:

 Alternatively, just use BCC. There is no reason for you to tell us who else 
you want to hear what you say. There’s nothing wrong with CCing, and nothing in 
the rules against it, but your recipients may not appreciate you distributing 
their email addresses on this list, to which they are not a member.

 -mel beckman

On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:29 AM, William Herrin  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 
mailto: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 
mailto: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_medium=email_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" 
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

It appears that Anne Mitchell  
said:


Cc: NANOG , Greg Skinner 
, "Karandikar, Abhay" 
, Rama Ati


, Bob Corner GMAIL 
, "Hsing, T. Russell" 
, "Chen, Henry C.J."
, ST Hsieh 
, "Chen, Abraham Y." 



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 
To: John Levine 
Cc: "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:


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM 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,


Hi John,

That's incorrect and obviously so. While

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

2022-03-09 Thread Mel Beckman 
Alternatively, just use BCC. There is no reason for you to tell us who else you 
want to hear what you say. There’s nothing wrong with CCing, and nothing in the 
rules against it, but your recipients may not appreciate you distributing their 
email addresses on this list, to which they are not a member.

 -mel beckman

On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:29 AM, William Herrin  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 
mailto: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 
mailto: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_medium=email_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" 
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

It appears that Anne Mitchell  
said:


Cc: NANOG , Greg Skinner 
, "Karandikar, Abhay" 
, Rama Ati


, Bob Corner GMAIL 
, "Hsing, T. Russell" 
, "Chen, Henry C.J."
, ST Hsieh 
, "Chen, Abraham Y." 



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 
To: John Levine 
Cc: "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:


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM 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,


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

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

2022-03-09 Thread William Herrin 
 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  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  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_medium=email_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"  
>> 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> 
>> <20220308203237.53e7038b1...@ary.qy>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> It appears that Anne Mitchell   
>> said:
>>
>> Cc: NANOG  , Greg Skinner 
>>  , "Karandikar, Abhay" 
>>  , Rama Ati
>>
>>  , Bob Corner GMAIL 
>>  , "Hsing, T. Russell" 
>>  , "Chen, Henry C.J." 
>> , ST Hsieh  
>> , "Chen, Abraham Y."  
>> 
>>
>> 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  
>> To: John Levine  
>> Cc: "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:
>>   
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM 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,
>>
>> 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 Herrinbill@herrin.ushttps://bill.herrin.us/
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>