> On May 16, 2019, at 7:53 PM, Michel Py
> wrote:
>
>> Mark Andrews wrote :
>> 240/4 isn’t ARIN’s to allocate or do you think ARIN should squat on the
>> space? :-)
>
> I was trying to find a more politically correct way to say it ;-)
> Look, you give me lemons, I make lemonade.
>
> How
Um, did IETF delegate 240/4 to IANA to manage at all?
Seems to me that we would first need an RFC to do that (or one which amends
RFC-1918 to add 240/4 to it, taking IANA out of the loop).
Since I don’ t think there’s a benefit to having IANA in the loop and I think
we’d need IETF action on
> David Farmer wrote :
> Do you think squatting is something new? You have got to be joking!
> Read RFC 1627, particularly near the bottom of page 3.
I have. You are kind of making my point, actually.
I was merely reacting to the fact that this whole thing started with prop 266,
and that people
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 21:54 Michel Py
wrote:
> > David Farmer wrote :
>
> Do you have a better suggestion ? The squatting issue is new, what does
> ARIN do about it ?
>
Do you think squatting is something new? You have got to be joking! Read
RFC 1627, particularly near the bottom of page 3.
On May 16, 2019, at 9:07 PM, Michel Py
wrote:.
>
>> This isn’t a problem ARIN needs to solve.
>
> Ok, I give up. Let's keep squatting.
Why don’t you just start squatting on 240/4 *without* RIR permission? This
seems like an ideal case for permissionless innovation, as it’s not like anyone
> Mark Andrews wrote :
> The purpose of the allocation changed.
How convenient.
> This isn’t a problem ARIN needs to solve.
Ok, I give up. Let's keep squatting.
> Scott Leibrand wrote :
> That said, it’s not that difficult to use IPv6 inside your own network to
> replace RFC1918 space
You
> On 17 May 2019, at 12:53 pm, Michel Py
> wrote:
>
>> Mark Andrews wrote :
>> 240/4 isn’t ARIN’s to allocate or do you think ARIN should squat on the
>> space? :-)
>
> I was trying to find a more politically correct way to say it ;-)
> Look, you give me lemons, I make lemonade.
>
> How
Why do you need an RIR to allocate anything if you just want to use 240/4 as
private space? Wouldn’t it be sufficient to patch your kernels on your servers
and network gear etc.? That’s not a trivial amount of work, but it would be
easier than convincing 5 registries or a standards body to go
> Cathy Aronson wrote :
> My point is that this has to come from the IETF
It does not. And failed attempts were 10 years ago, when almost everyone still
believed that IPv6 would be deployed "within 2 or 3 years".
I hate to break it to you, but ARIN members interest are not automatically the
I am aware of all these attempts as well.
The IETF has no interest in this. My point is that this has to come from the
IETF and at least one RIR that you mentioned already tried and failed
As Owen has said and the IETF has agreed, IPv6 is the “better alternative ”
Thanks!
Cathy
Sent from
Cathy,
> Cj Aronson wrote :
> Michel,
> If you check out the last draft that expired in 2008 you'll see it was
> written by Geoff, George, and Paul at APNIC
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00
I was totally aware of this; a more recent version has been mentioned in this
very
Michel,
If you check out the last draft that expired in 2008 you'll see it was
written by Geoff, George, and Paul at APNIC
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00
-Cathy
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:48 PM Michel Py <
mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> > Joe Provo
> Mark Andrews wrote :
> 240/4 isn’t ARIN’s to allocate or do you think ARIN should squat on the
> space? :-)
I was trying to find a more politically correct way to say it ;-)
Look, you give me lemons, I make lemonade.
How did we call that, when ARIN started to allocate IPv6 PI when no such
I suppose we could try a global policy that would have to pass in all 5
RIRs requesting IANA and the IETF to allocate 240/4 for Private Use. If
that were to actually occur, it seems difficult for the IETF to ignore such
a request. While on the other hand, I'm not sure there would be a consensus
240/4 isn’t ARIN’s to allocate or do you think ARIN should squat on the space?
:-)
> On 17 May 2019, at 11:48 am, Michel Py
> wrote:
>
>> Joe Provo wrote :
>> By all means, go tilt at the class e windmill if you like;
>> it will only be the fourth time or so, I can't recall.
>
> I was trying
> Joe Provo wrote :
> By all means, go tilt at the class e windmill if you like;
> it will only be the fourth time or so, I can't recall.
I was trying to convince Owen to co-author with me ;-)
> But it isn't anything for ARIN policy, so feel free to take it up at the
> IETF...
I would not
> On May 16, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:52 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> It doesn't really matter... ALL of these software kernels receive
> updates frequently;
> mobile and desktop OSes in particular have numerous updates per month, and
> even BSD, Cisco,
> On May 16, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Michel Py
> wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>> Let’s see what that entails…
>> Any of those organizations have Linux boxes? — I bet the answer is yes… OK…
>> Have to update the Linux Kernel…
>
> Already done.
>
>> BSD? — Yep — OK, that too…
>
> Not on top of
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:52 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
It doesn't really matter... ALL of these software kernels receive
updates frequently;
mobile and desktop OSes in particular have numerous updates per month, and
even BSD, Cisco, Juniper, Arista OSes have frequent updates being made.
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 08:03:59PM +, Michel Py wrote:
[snip]
IMNSHO, nothing will prevent the type of people who think
squatting is ok from doing it.
By all means, go tilt at the class e windmill if you like;
it will only be the fourth time or so, I can't recall.
But it isn't anything for
The IETF has rejected this change to class e space a number of times. The
last draft on this expired in 2008. The overwhelming sentiment on the
subject is that we should focus on deploying IPv6. If you feel strongly
about it then write a new Internet draft and try to get it to move
forward. I
> Owen DeLong wrote :
> Let’s see what that entails…
> Any of those organizations have Linux boxes? — I bet the answer is yes… OK…
> Have to update the Linux Kernel…
Already done.
> BSD? — Yep — OK, that too…
Not on top of that one, but I don't see a problem either.
> Cisco?…
Would not be an
Argh…
Throughout this message (and the message I replied to), 240.0.0.0/4 is
misrepresented as 204/4. Apologies, those references should read 240/4 or
240.0.0.0/4.
Owen
> On May 16, 2019, at 11:51 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 16, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Michel Py
>> wrote:
>>
>>
> On May 16, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Michel Py
> wrote:
>
> Hi Owen,
>
>>> Michel Py wrote :
>>> Typical use case : large org that has outgrown 10/8 and squats un-announced
>>> DoD prefix.
>>> They know it's dumb, but IPv6 does not cut it either. They pick the lesser
>>> of two evils.
>
>>
> In order to make 240/4 work, we would have had to update the code on
virtually every system on the internet and most of the applications.
Seems to me the reasonable answer is for the IETF to declare that 240/4
should be implemented as Unicast space. Not release it to IANA for
distribution. Not
Hi Owen,
>> Michel Py wrote :
>> Typical use case : large org that has outgrown 10/8 and squats un-announced
>> DoD prefix.
>> They know it's dumb, but IPv6 does not cut it either. They pick the lesser
>> of two evils.
> Owen DeLong wrote :
> I’d argue that IPv6 is the lesser of evils and
26 matches
Mail list logo
