> Kai 'wusel' Siering
> Rationale: an internal network needing more than 16 million IPv4 addresses
> (10/8) does have the power to solve their
> addressing needs with IPv6. This isn't true for newcomers that have to deal
> with old players not enabling v6.
I do not agree because it does not fit
> Uros Gaber wrote :
> But what other solution do you see, a brand new protocol that takes another x
> years for adoption,
> that will in far end still cause dual or better yet triple stack deployment?
No. It has to be a single-stack protocol fully backwards compatible.
Dual-stacking is the fata
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote :
> I don't mean to be criticising in any way, but running services on obsolete
> operating systems is a risk in itself, if the computer is connected to the
> Internet.
We are well-aware of the risks. None of the production computers have Internet
access. Most o
> Sander Steffann wrote :
> If you want a war that is your choice, but please go and fight it somewhere
> else. RIPE
> mailing lists are a place to be constructive and, as Job said, excellent to
> each other.
Read the rest of my posts. I did not start the war. I did not start this thread.
There
>> Michel Py wrote :
>> This 240/4 as an extension of RFC1918 thing is the perfect example of it.
> Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote :
> If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the only valid
> option is "public unicast",
I agree
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Do you measure what is happening on private interconnects ? MMR traffic ?
> Job Snijders wrote :
> Yes, looking at stats at NTT (a network which basically is only private
> interconnects),
> I see a similar pattern as we observe at AMS-IX. I&#
> Carlos Friaças wrote :
> Admitting that "zealotism" is not a got thing might be a good 1st step.
I did not create the IPv4 zealots, I joined their ranks by economic necessity.
I do not like it, but I need the IPv4 ecosystem for 20 more years and I am not
going to let the IPv6 zealots destroy my
> Job Snijders wrote :
> I've observed IPv6 hitting a plateau (even a slight decrease!) in usage
> of IPv6 across multiple large networks measured over significant time.
I was expecting more than not even 3% IPv6 at AMSIX. I don't call it
"significant time" yet.
IMHO, it will take a few more year
Marc, long time no see indeed ;-)
> Marc Blanchet wrote :
> To me IPv6 is the only viable solution.
To me IPv4 is the only viable solution until a replacement for IPv6 is found.
You know what I do for a living. Where are the US$ 2B I need to dual-stack ?
I just can't afford it.
> but the large
Hi Job,
> Job Snijders wrote :
> If the IPv4 vs IPv6 tussle is interpreted as a culture war,
It is war, but I don't think it is a matter of culture. After all, 20 years ago
we almost all were in the same boat, more or less. Most of us believed that
IPv6 could replace IPv4 in a reasonable number
> Sander Steffann wrote :
> I must say I have had enough of your snarky remarks. They are very
> unproductive and do not contribute to this working group in any way. Please
> refrain from posting unless you have something to contribute please.
Then unsubscribe me. What is very unproductive is the
> r...@jack.fr.eu.org wrote :
> What is not FUD is that 240/4 is not currently routable through my home router
Oh wow, you need 240/4 on your home router ? must be a pretty big home, if you
don't have enough with 10/8
Michel.
> Dave That wrote :
> That last number is pure BS. It's not a single cost. It's that last dangling
> set of apps that can't be converted to ipv6 that's the infinite cost.
It's not only the apps, it's the tools and the entire business process that is
behind. I am not going to replace a ten million
>>> Nick Hilliard wrote :
>>> The cost of making 240/4 usable is to update every device on the
>>> planet, including legacy ipv4 stacks.
>> Michel Py wrote :
>> No it is not. It costs nothing to the Internet, it only costs to
>> those who chose
> Nick Hilliard wrote :
> The cost of making 240/4 usable is to update every device on the planet,
> including legacy ipv4 stacks.
No it is not. It costs nothing to the Internet, it only costs to those who
chose to use it as private address space.
More FUD.
Michel.
> Jen Linkova wrote :
> As a co-chair I'm excited to see some discussion happening
> here, especially after the list has been quiet for a while.
As a matter of fact, it was so quiet that I forgot that I once subscribed to it.
Don't worry; I am about to unsubscribe.
> I'm less excited to see that
> Dave Taht wrote :
> https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/tree/master/rfcs
> I'd like lots more folk to review this before we punt it up to iana and the
> ietf,
IMHO, 240/4 is worth the effort as an extension to RFC1918 but the rest of that
(127/8, 0/8) is not worth the effort. One or tw
Hi Carlos,
> Carlos Friaças wrote :
> We have to acknowledge "IPv6 zealots" are real.
> Disclaimer: i think i was part of that group some years ago.
Indeed, and so was I. WAS.
> But Mr.Rey's reference about IPv6 deployment rates also makes a good point!
Nobody cares about deployment rates. Wha
> Enno Rey wrote :
> That is, in all seriousness, regrettable. I live and work in California, too,
> not far away from Sacramento. My
> ISP brings IPv6 to my home, I have it on my phones and I hear that the
> companies of people I meet over lunch
> serve terabytes of data over IPv6 every single d
> Wolfgang Zenker wrote :
> ... the results of the RIPE NCC survey published today lists the scarcity of
> IPv4
> addresses as one of the largest challenges facing the participants in the
> survey.
The participants in the RIPE NCC survey are not representative of the market.
Here in the USA we h
20 matches
Mail list logo
