> On Sep 17, 2021, at 01:57 , Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 17, 2021, at 3:42 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> Makes me want to say ‘let’s see the book’. It is an historic artifact that
>> should be scanned and posted somewhere for reference.
>
> I used to think that too.
>
> Then I
The historic artifacts are already available, there are early series of
RFCs that are essentially published snapshots of the "notebook". The first
series is titled "Assigned Numbers", and up to RFC960 it includes IP
address assignments, as well as many other protocol assignments. Then later
the
On 16 Sep 2021, at 7:13 PM, William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 9:42 AM William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
Indeed, the last time I tried (today) ARIN wouldn't accept a change in
postal address even when submitted by the recognized organization POC.
That book should probably be at the Smithsonian.
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 04:57 Bill Woodcock wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2021, at 3:42 AM, Martin Hannigan
wrote:
> Makes me want to say ‘let’s see the book’. It is an historic
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 04:57 Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 2021, at 3:42 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > Makes me want to say ‘let’s see the book’. It is an historic artifact
> that should be scanned and posted somewhere for reference.
>
> I used to think that too.
>
> Then I thought
However, I do not think that is a good reason to withhold it.
I am not aware on how it was kept, but I am guessing it is in numeric
order, as that would be the logical way to avoid assigning the same range
to two different parties. That is how I maintained LAN assignments back
in the static
> On Sep 17, 2021, at 3:42 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Makes me want to say ‘let’s see the book’. It is an historic artifact that
> should be scanned and posted somewhere for reference.
I used to think that too.
Then I thought about it some more. Remember, it was just a notebook. Not a
Makes me want to say ‘let’s see the book’. It is an historic artifact that
should be scanned and posted somewhere for reference.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 8:08 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> I got my first 4 blocks (1 class B, and 3 class C blocks (pre-CIDR) in 4
> different sites in 4 cities in 4
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 9:42 AM William Herrin wrote:
> Indeed, the last time I tried (today) ARIN wouldn't accept a change in
> postal address even when submitted by the recognized organization POC.
> The ARIN-online web form just "blinks" when I hit submit and nothing
> happens.
A quick shout
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:08 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> I got my first 4 blocks (1 class B, and 3 class C blocks (pre-CIDR)
> in 4 different sites in 4 cities in 4 states) of addresses in ’88 (I
> know the year because my NIC handle was MA88 and I had
> noted that both where 88, a coincidence but
I am now old.
I know new and improved isn't
GUI's have massively slowed down input.
In the text days, a good data entry person in one case could enter a hundred+
transactions in a 20th of the time it takes in Windows and even worse in Web
app.
I pharmacies filling 4 scripts per minute. Now
Ahhh, those were the days.
-Mark
> On Sep 15, 2021, at 5:08 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> I got my first 4 blocks (1 class B, and 3 class C blocks (pre-CIDR) in 4
> different sites in 4 cities in 4 states) of addresses in ’88 (I know the year
> because my NIC handle was MA88 and I had noted
I got my first 4 blocks (1 class B, and 3 class C blocks (pre-CIDR) in 4
different sites in 4 cities in 4 states) of addresses in ’88 (I know the year
because my NIC handle was MA88 and I had noted that both where 88, a
coincidence but just the same memorable). Even then there where formal
Hi Paul,
It was interesting reading about your problem, your take on matters, the
experience and history with ARIN. Thank you for that.
While I can appreciate ARIN's position from the perspective of 'how do they
know', I can appreciate yours too. We're not talking about criminal courts
and
I need to make a slight correction.
I am semi retired from our Internet company and my son runs the show.
He is a triple major Engineer and is PE certifiable in each of the 3 areas.
He says he has deployed IPv6 to subscribers.
But Simple and Cheap NO.
5 years and a complete forklift to all
> On Sep 14, 2021, at 22:50 , sc...@solarnetone.org wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2021, at 22:42 , sc...@solarnetone.org wrote:
>>>
Nobody I know has found a way to do lossless packing of 128 bits into a 32
bit field yet. Until
On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 14, 2021, at 22:42 , sc...@solarnetone.org wrote:
Nobody I know has found a way to do lossless packing of 128 bits into a 32 bit
field yet. Until you can achieve that, compatibility is rather limited.
Please present your solution here.
> On Sep 14, 2021, at 22:42 , sc...@solarnetone.org wrote:
>
>> Nobody I know has found a way to do lossless packing of 128 bits into a 32
>> bit field yet. Until you can achieve that, compatibility is rather limited.
>>
>> Please present your solution here.
>
> Encode it in four sequential
Nobody I know has found a way to do lossless packing of 128 bits into a
32 bit field yet. Until you can achieve that, compatibility is rather
limited.
Please present your solution here.
Encode it in four sequential packets, 32 bits per, and add logic to parse
those malformed addresses in
> On Sep 14, 2021, at 19:40 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> Many solutions and proposals have been offered by many people much more
>>> qualified than myself to do so, and were brought to the rocks due to dual
>>> stack and anti-nat religion.
>> Could this be due to
Owen DeLong wrote:
Many solutions and proposals have been offered by many people much more
qualified than myself to do so, and were brought to the rocks due to dual stack
and anti-nat religion.
Could this be due to the fact that things which merely extend the pain of
address scarcity are
> On Sep 14, 2021, at 10:32 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Ironically, a timely move to dual stack would have meant that the IPv4
>> addresses needed for it were available, which would have allowed a smooth
>> transition to v6 with new sites being deployed v6-only and
Owen DeLong wrote:
Ironically, a timely move to dual stack would have meant that the IPv4
addresses needed for it were available, which would have allowed a
smooth transition to v6 with new sites being deployed v6-only and old
sites deprecating v4 at their leisure. Foot-dragging by those who
>>
>> Electric cars have been around for a century. But claiming that they
>> failed for 80 years means they are failing now is idiotic because
>> they aren't failing now.
>
> Name and shame, dual stack and wait (for all stacks to be dual stacked) is an
> utter failure because it failed for
hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
I do not see IPv6 as a failure. In most networks where both protocols
are available, more than 1/2 of the traffic flows the IPv6 way. That
is NOT a sign of failure.
Your are correct. IPv6 is a perfectly usable and workable protocol
(there have been many, so
Owen DeLong wrote:
Nope… I was suggesting USG stop buying anything from any company with
a website not usable from a v6 only network.
That might help a little for IPv6 deployment but I doubt very much it
will not be riddled with waivers and of course, the unintended side
effects.
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 15:43 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 13, 2021, at 14:54 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Strongly disagree in yet additional government intrusion into private
>>> market, the individuals right to choose what to build sell or purchase is
I do not see IPv6 as a failure. In most networks where both protocols are
available, more than 1/2 of the traffic flows the IPv6 way. That is NOT a
sign of failure. Lots of work has been done to extend the lifetime of
IPv4, and to drag as many unused IPv4 addresses back into active use.
There
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I didn't invent IPv6. Not my circus not my monkeys. I'm just a guy
who listened to the experts when they said "we invented this IPv6 thing"
then learned about it and used it. I didn't listen to the experts and
try to think up excuses for not doing what they said or
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The thing that's so incredible about IPv6 wasn't that it was thought up
and built and works. It was that it was thought up and built and worked
decades before we ran out of assignable IPv4 and really needed it.
Usually inventions like it are the result of a madcap
On 9/13/2021 2:43 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Helping them to find IPv4 just kicks the can down the road a bit more.
It helps them right now. What it doesnt help is the state of IPv6
deployment. Which most users could care less about. Its just your (most
noble) goal, and
On 9/13/2021 12:29 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Only if you're explicitly selling Internet service directly to the
government. If you're selling a service of which Internet is a
component or if you're selling service to a government contractor who
is bundling it with their product, the IPv6
Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
I’m not standing in the way of you doing whatever the heck you want with them.
I simply don’t care.
You care enough to oppose it. How about not?
However, won’t support IETF or any other body wasting its time or effort on
such a thing.
Owen
Thats
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 13, 2021, at 14:54 , Joe Maimon wrote:
Strongly disagree in yet additional government intrusion into private market,
the individuals right to choose what to build sell or purchase is part of your
freedom to live how you choose. Dont take it for granted.
I’m
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 14:59 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>>
>>> Agree that IETF could have been less narrow and spent more time trying to
>>> find a usage that could have been beneficial to the Internet instead of
>>> just bet on the fast deployment of
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 14:54 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>
>> However, I can see several situations where USG could exert legitimate
>> pressure. I’m not sure that they should, necessarily, but I am
>> not completely convinced that they should not, either. Note that
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 14:57 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:49 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 2021, at 12:21 , William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:01 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
>>> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 11:03 , Joe Maimon wrote:
Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
Agree that IETF could have been less narrow and spent more time trying to find
a usage that could have been beneficial to the Internet instead of just bet on
the fast deployment of IPv6.
Meh… Don’t really see the point.
Owen
Think of it this way. Whats
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:49 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 2021, at 12:21 , William Herrin wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:01 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
> > wrote:
> >>> On Sep 13, 2021, at 11:03 , Joe Maimon wrote:
> >>> The most salient difference is that the USG own the
hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
The Federal Government has has an IPv6 requirement on networks and
purchases since 2008. We have federal contracts, and it is still
required.
As for private networks, it is rather foolish to buy any networking
gear for over the last 10 years that does not
Owen DeLong wrote:
However, I can see several situations where USG could exert legitimate
pressure. I’m not sure that they should, necessarily, but I am
not completely convinced that they should not, either. Note that nothing I
propose below represents an area where the USG does
not
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Helping them to find IPv4 just kicks the can down the road a bit more.
It helps them right now. What it doesnt help is the state of IPv6
deployment. Which most users could care less about. Its just your (most
noble) goal, and you would have us all ignore others'
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 12:57 , Fernando Frediani wrote:
>
> Hi Bill
>
> How would it be possible that something marked as *Future* Use be blocked at
> the firmware level on any network equipment ?
> If it says Future it means one day it would be used for something. It could
> be for
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 12:21 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:01 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 2021, at 11:03 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>>> The most salient difference is that the USG own the airwaves and regulates
>>> them.
>>
>> I am convinced that
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:57 PM Fernando Frediani wrote:
> How would it be possible that something marked as *Future* Use be
> blocked at the firmware level on any network equipment ?
Hi Fernando,
In network equipment the line between software and firmware is blurry
at best. A lot of network
Hi Bill
How would it be possible that something marked as *Future* Use be
blocked at the firmware level on any network equipment ?
If it says Future it means one day it would be used for something. It
could be for multicast it could be for Unicast, who knows. But adding a
hard-coded to block
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:17 PM wrote:
> The Federal Government has has an IPv6 requirement on networks and
> purchases since 2008. We have federal contracts, and it is still
> required.
Only if you're explicitly selling Internet service directly to the
government. If you're selling a service
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:01 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 2021, at 11:03 , Joe Maimon wrote:
> > The most salient difference is that the USG own the airwaves and regulates
> > them.
>
> I am convinced that they regulate them.
>
> I am not convinced that they own them.
Hi
The Federal Government has has an IPv6 requirement on networks and
purchases since 2008. We have federal contracts, and it is still
required.
As for private networks, it is rather foolish to buy any networking gear
for over the last 10 years that does not support IPv6, as at least you
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 11:03 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>> This ignores some of the real consumer-afflicting issues in the situation
>> and the key point I was trying to make…
>>
>> 1. The ATSC mandate was one of the most successful in USG History.
>>
>
On 9/13/2021 11:15 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I want to include them. The IPv6 detractors don't. Which camp are you
in? the inclusive one or the non-inclusive one?
Ted
Neither. I am pointing out to you that your efforts are wasted and
useless and wont help the very users you wish to.
Which
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:54 AM Fernando Frediani wrote:
> I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
> who embedded to not forward traffic for that amount of /8's market as
> Future Use. I think that was one of the most disastrous decisions ever
> made in this area of
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 9/13/2021 10:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Put any other way, you are calling lazy people whom do not put in the
effort to make your use of IPv6 more rewarding for you.
I cant agree with that characterization. In fact its sort of the
reverse. You are the lazy
I dont have a problem with this space being private use. I DO have a
problem with these addresses appearing on the public internet, especially
when one of the biggest OS vendors does not support these addresses. Thus
I am opposed to the addresses being assigned to ARIN or any other RIR.
In
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
If people spent a tenth of the effort deploying IPv6 as they do fighting
over whether or not so and so should give up some IPv4 or whether or not
IPv4 should be leased or not leased, then nobody would be using IPv4
at all by now and the IPv4 debate would be a moot
> What is really going on here Owen is the "keep IPv4 and dump IPv6" proponents
> have successfully reframed the argument into whether or not it's
> irresponsible to "hang on to unused IPv4" And I am afraid you have fallen
> into that trap. If they can get you down that rabbithole and making
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 10:21 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> Here in Central Florida, electric cars effectively run on coal, the primary
> local source at night of the main power provider.
Hopefully that will change over time. Heck, hooking a wind turbine up to your
governor could power
Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
This ignores some of the real consumer-afflicting issues in the situation and
the key point I was trying to make…
1. The ATSC mandate was one of the most successful in USG History.
The most salient difference is that the USG own the airwaves and
regulates
On 9/13/2021 10:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Put any other way, you are calling lazy people whom do not put in the
effort to make your use of IPv6 more rewarding for you.
I cant agree with that characterization. In fact its sort of the
reverse. You are the lazy one, expecting the rest of the
Fernando Frediani wrote:
I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
who embedded to not forward traffic for that amount of /8's market as
Future Use. I think that was one of the most disastrous decisions ever
made in this area of IP space.
Using 240/4 on network
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I am with you on this. Yes. its theoretically "irresponsible" but that
is no justification to be high handed.
It IS NOT irresponsible of me to keep my yard in an urban area.
Apparently I did not quite express myself correctly enough, I meant to
highlight that it
This ignores some of the real consumer-afflicting issues in the situation and
the key point I was trying to make…
1. The ATSC mandate was one of the most successful in USG History.
+ Stations all started deploying ATSC transmitters well before
the first deadline.
+
hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
The MAJOR problem with the use of 240/4 is the hard coding of these
addresses in Router and Workstation operating systems. This is NOT an
ARIN problem.
I understand it is just a flag and a recompile in Linux, but trying to
get Cisco and Microsoft to go along
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
You say that because for 2 things:
1) You don't understand the idea behind IPv6. Amazing, since you have
deployed it, you still don't get it.
Your entitled to your opinion, mystifying as it may be.
2) You don't understand how networks grow. All network growth
I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
who embedded to not forward traffic for that amount of /8's market as
Future Use. I think that was one of the most disastrous decisions ever
made in this area of IP space.
Using 240/4 on network equipment now a days is
On 9/13/2021 10:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 13, 2021, at 09:36 , Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 9/12/2021 3:37 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I use more. Are you going to claim that my choice not to NAT is
somehow invalid?
In an IPv4 world, yes. It's irresponsible.
That’s sort of like
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 09:48 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 2:50 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>> That’s sort of like saying that people who bought single-family houses in
>> urban areas should be forced into high density housing because in an urban
>> area, it’s
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 09:36 , Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/12/2021 3:37 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> I use more. Are you going to claim that my choice not to NAT is
> somehow invalid?
In an IPv4 world, yes. It's irresponsible.
>>> That’s sort of like saying that people who
The MAJOR problem with the use of 240/4 is the hard coding of these
addresses in Router and Workstation operating systems. This is NOT an
ARIN problem.
I understand it is just a flag and a recompile in Linux, but trying to get
Cisco and Microsoft to go along with this idea is going to take a
Sony is one of the largest TV manufacturers in the world and
they also are a very large movie studio owner and one of the larger
game console manufacturers.
They have huge economic incentive to push 1040p HDTV and now
to push 4K tv. Have you seen a PS4 4K game on one of these?
It's almost
Here in Central Florida, electric cars effectively run on coal, the
primary local source at night of the main power provider.
However, I still see electric cars as a good move for certain uses,
including short trips and things like the Post office.
In the case of the Post Office, they have
On 9/13/2021 9:48 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 2:50 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
That’s sort of like saying that people who bought single-family houses in urban
areas should be forced into high density housing because in an urban area, it’s
irresponsible to
The true problem with the digital TV problem was twofold:
1) The FCC should have mandated DTV tuners PRIOR to the first DTV stations
going on the air. This mistake was similar to the FCC waiting on the UHF
tuner mandate until a lot of UHF licenses were already issued and were
operating.
2)
On 9/12/2021 3:36 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I have already deployed IPv6, back in 2008 on this very workstation. It
has done nothing but (occasionally?often?) slow me down or cause some
other mystifying connectivity issues.
I can count on one hand with leftover fingers the number of times
On 9/12/2021 3:37 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I use more. Are you going to claim that my choice not to NAT is
somehow invalid?
In an IPv4 world, yes. It's irresponsible.
That’s sort of like saying that people who bought single-family houses
in urban areas should be forced into high density
> On Sep 12, 2021, at 15:37 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2021, at 14:02 , Michel Py
>>> wrote:
>>>
Owen DeLong wrote :
I know you don’t like that answer because for some reason, you prefer the
ongoing pain of IPv4 vs. the small
> On Sep 12, 2021, at 14:44 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The refusal to deploy 240/4 are mostly on the basis that it would take just
>> as much code effort to do that as it would to put v6 on a box, with the
>> exception that most boxes already have a v6 stack, so
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 12, 2021, at 14:02 , Michel Py
wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote :
I know you don’t like that answer because for some reason, you prefer the
ongoing pain of IPv4 vs. the small short-term pain of deploying IPv6, but there
it is.
What you call short-term is 20 years and
Owen DeLong wrote:
The refusal to deploy 240/4 are mostly on the basis that it would take just as
much code effort to do that as it would to put v6 on a box, with the exception
that most boxes already have a v6 stack, so actually more effort, yet yielding
substantially less gain.
So people
> On Sep 12, 2021, at 14:02 , Michel Py
> wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>> I know you don’t like that answer because for some reason, you prefer the
>> ongoing pain of IPv4 vs. the small short-term pain of deploying IPv6, but
>> there it is.
>
> What you call short-term is 20 years and
Owen DeLong wrote:
The refusal to deploy 240/4 are mostly on the basis that it would take just as
much code effort to do that as it would to put v6 on a box, with the exception
that most boxes already have a v6 stack, so actually more effort, yet yielding
substantially less gain.
Turns out
Owen DeLong wrote:
My point is that in some ways, it’s better than you think.
IF USG chose to step in and simply require IPv6 deployment (IPv4 optional) as a
minimum for federal funding (say USF money, to advertise yourself as a
broadband or internet service provider, etc.), that would
> On Sep 12, 2021, at 13:27 , Michel Py
> wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>> However, some smart engineer(s) somewhere working in a garage (Steve Jobs
>> and Steve Wozniak) may very
>> well develop an IPv4 compatible protocol that can be used along with IPv4
>> making the transition away
>>
My point is that in some ways, it’s better than you think.
IF USG chose to step in and simply require IPv6 deployment (IPv4 optional) as a
minimum for federal funding (say USF money, to advertise yourself as a
broadband or internet service provider, etc.), that would drive the necessary
> Owen DeLong wrote :
> However, some smart engineer(s) somewhere working in a garage (Steve Jobs and
> Steve Wozniak) may very
> well develop an IPv4 compatible protocol that can be used along with IPv4
> making the transition away
> from IPv4 easier and less costly - and if that happens maybe
> On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:10 , Steven Ryerse
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the IP history lesson as I'm sure a lot of folks in this forum
> haven't heard of that info.
>
> Unfortunately a lot of politics has gone into the fossil fuel debates which
> muddies the subject up a lot and to some
My only claim is that the US Government could step in if they want to, and by
law, dictate a switch to another Internet energy sooner than the market might
otherwise do it. I suspect you are right that if the Government did get
involved, it would be a sloppy and inefficient implementation with
Thanks for the IP history lesson as I'm sure a lot of folks in this forum
haven't heard of that info.
Unfortunately a lot of politics has gone into the fossil fuel debates which
muddies the subject up a lot and to some extent that goes on in the IP world
too. Humans are political creatures.
> On Sep 12, 2021, at 10:04 , Steven Ryerse
> wrote:
>
> I am fine with right-sizing allocations. An AT size network should be able
> to receive a larger allocation based on the size of their network versus our
> organization which should only receive a smaller allocation based on the size
> On Sep 11, 2021, at 23:23 , Steven Ryerse
> wrote:
>
> In the 1970's when I was going to high school they told us we would run out
> of oil by the end of the 1990's. Maybe that was possible then - based on the
> then known oil reserves - if no more reserves were found. Its 2021 now and
I am fine with right-sizing allocations. An AT size network should be able
to receive a larger allocation based on the size of their network versus our
organization which should only receive a smaller allocation based on the size
of our network. This would work for IPv4 & Ipv6 and IPv8 if
This does occur on a wide scale and should be addressed. The hand
doesn't tend to be incorrect.
Cheken
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 4:59 AM Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 10, 2021, at 19:29 , William Herrin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:42 PM
Steven Ryerse wrote:
So we have Ipv4 which is the energy currently running most of our internet. IPv4 has a known total of IP addresses. The reserves of unused IPv4 are spread around the planet in an inefficient and uneven manner. Every day more and more IPv4 addresses are put to work
Owen DeLong wrote:
Then the invisible hand ant its middle finger clearly prefer leasing, so why
all the hubbub about it?
Owen
Because for a long time we had it better than that and we are not
willing to abandon ship just yet, we would like to try to limp it into port.
Responsible
In the 1970's when I was going to high school they told us we would run out of
oil by the end of the 1990's. Maybe that was possible then - based on the then
known oil reserves - if no more reserves were found. Its 2021 now and we know
we didn't run out of oil in the 90's, and in fact have
> On Sep 11, 2021, at 19:59 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 10, 2021, at 19:29 , William Herrin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:42 PM Mike Burns wrote:
May I ask if you're thinking changes with the understand that all of the
Actually, Roku is one of the parties that would face a potential forcing
function if Comcast and/or some others of similar
size in the Eyeball market announced a date when they would start surcharging
IPv4.
Owen
> On Sep 11, 2021, at 20:20 , Paul E McNary wrote:
>
> I must somewhat agree.
In message <391242690.8.1631416835397.javamail.zim...@cameron.net>,
Paul E McNary wrote:
>We are out of ipv4 IP's.
Not really. It's just that the ones that we have are very poorly distributed
and also very poorly utilized.
It is technically possible to host 100,000+ web sites on a single
I must somewhat agree. Our fiber provide to our ISP just recently rolled out
ipv6 but not dual stack.
We have a great deal of problems routing to ipv6 hosts from our customers ipv6
ip addresses.
We have trouble with our Verizon phones on ipv6 getting to our routers.
People out in the country
Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
On Sep 10, 2021, at 19:29 , William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:42 PM Mike Burns wrote:
May I ask if you're thinking changes with the understand that all of the
addresses being considered are going to be purchased.
Hi Mike,
I suppose my
1 - 100 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
