*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit unnerving.
Either participation in the IETF is open, or it isn't. When a person's
opinion/view/thoughts/words/etc. are judged exclusively by do I know
this person then you have
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 14:23, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from a
RIR, shared by whoever the interested parties are.
The IETF *need not* specify any BCP on how to improve NAT444
CGN-scale alone, because such action
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:34, Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com wrote:
not replying specific to this mail but to the tons that have arrived
lately, are there some confusion out there that it is the amount of
votes on ietf@ that make a do/do not on a draft? ... or just me
missunderstanding
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:35, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
Dear Chris,
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 08:43 -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from
Apologies for top posting rather than addressing specific
commentators, but there have been several misconceptions raised
several times that I felt should be addressed generically:
1) We are out of IPv4 space / There's no-where to get this /10 -
There is already a /10 reserved by the ARIN
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:34, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
So, Chris, if you expect this allocation will avoid the costs of
signing everyone up for IPv6-capable CPE, what is your
transition plan? Or are you advocating an IPv4-forever model?
If the latter, can you explain
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:15, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
To follow up on an earlier comment, the rate at which ARIN (or
other RIRs) are running out of /10s (or /8s) is probably
irrelevant, as are hypotheses about what ARIN staff might do
about requests for allocation for CGN use
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
This is not about IPv4 life-support.
Seriously?
Seriously.
The birth of a shared CGN space in no significant way extends the life
of IPv4. It does provide the best possible
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 08:44, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
In Section 3:
A Service Provider can number the interfaces in question from
legitimately assigned globally unique address space. While this
solution poses the fewest problems, it is impractical because
globally unique IPv4
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:59, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Chris,
At 08:57 AM 2/9/2012, Chris Grundemann wrote:
http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8
I am aware of the APNIC announcement. That's one out of five regions.
My apologies, when you stated I haven't seen any
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 13:59, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Ron,
On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
At NANOG 54, ARIN reported that they are down to 5.6 /8s. If just four ISPs
ask for a /10 for CGN, we burn one of those /8s.
Is that really a good idea?
Long ago,
Hides the screen, nervous, pays cash... Sounds to me like anyone
surfing pr0n at the Internet Cafe is now a suspected terrorist.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 14:55, Alan Johnston alan.b.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this yet another reason not to have IETF meetings in the USA? ;-)
I still fully support this draft and encourage the IESG to move it forward.
Thanks,
~Chris
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 16:03, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:06, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
Several topic have become intertwined in the mailing list discussion, making
it difficult to gauge community consensus. Further discussion of the
following topics would help the IESG to gauge consensus:
- Is the
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 17:00, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 11/29/2011 15:37, Chris Grundemann wrote:
I support draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and the
allocation of a /10 as Shared CGN Space because we are approaching
complete global exhaustion of unallocated IPv4
I support draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and the
allocation of a /10 as Shared CGN Space because we are approaching
complete global exhaustion of unallocated IPv4 addresses and the value
of globally unique addresses is becoming manifest. Network operators
recognize the need to
17 matches
Mail list logo
