> On 18 Nov 2021, at 17:21, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Joe Maimon said:
>>
>>> For example
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 from 2008
>>> which fell prey to the "by the time this is usable IPv6 will have taken
>>>
John Levine wrote:
It appears that Joe Maimon said:
For example
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 from 2008
which fell prey to the "by the time this is usable IPv6 will have taken
over" groupthink.
Objectively wrong.
I will agree that your explanation of the
Mark Andrews wrote:
On 18 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Joe Maimon wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up drafts
like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use. It isn’t free.
There are so many things wrong with this
Yet, in spite of claims of TX being an island, customers all over the
country are now being forced to pay energy surcharges specifically tied to
the Feb 2021 TX event. It was a line item on my last bill.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 21:03 Sean Donelan wrote:
> "Those Who Do Not Learn History Are
On 11/18/21 01:29, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html
That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just
me. So many things are
Subject:Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
To:nanog ;
This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html
I can think of about a dozen /8's that would be better to use. (Hint, they all
I missed the October publication of FERC's annual staff report on lessons
learned.
https://ferc.gov/media/2021-report-commission-led-cip-audits
Some are the usual boilerplate FERC staff "found that while most of the
cybersecurity protection processes and procedures adopted by the
registered
It appears that Joe Maimon said:
>Mark Andrews wrote:
>> It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up
>> drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is
>in use. It isn’t free.
>
>There are so many things wrong with this statement that I am not even
"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It."
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has published its final
report on the Texas 2021 power outages. According to FERC during the last
10 years, there have been four extreme cold weather events which have
threatened the Texas
> On 18 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>> It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up
>> drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use. It
>> isn’t free.
>
> There are so many things wrong with this
Mark Andrews wrote:
It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up drafts
like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use. It isn’t free.
There are so many things wrong with this statement that I am not even
going to try to enumerate them.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just
me. So many things are just me.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
https://xkcd.com/386/
Other problems which will occur sooner:
1. Unix 32-bit time_t overflow.
2. North
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:29:49PM +, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html
>
> That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:45:04PM -1000, scott wrote:
> On 11/17/2021 1:29 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who
> > noticed?
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html
>
>
It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up drafts
like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use. It isn’t free.
Lots of bad attempts to justify a bad idea.
"The IPv4 network 127/8 was first reserved by Jon Postel in 1981 [RFC0776].
Postel's
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:31 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html
Hi Jay,
I think it's a good idea. It won't be usable any time in the next two
decades but
On 11/17/2021 1:29 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html
That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just
me. So many things are
This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html
That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just
me. So many things are just me.
[ Hat tip to Lauren Weinstein, whom I
NANOG Community,
The NANOG Program Committee (PC) would like to remind you they are
accepting proposals for in-person or remote presentations at all sessions
of NANOG 84, a hybrid meeting, taking place in Austin, TX on February
14th-16th, 2022. Below is a summary of key details and dates from the
NANOG Community,
The NANOG Program Committee (PC) would like to remind you they are
accepting proposals for in-person or remote presentations at all sessions
of NANOG 84, a hybrid meeting, taking place in Austin, TX on February
14th-16th, 2022. Below is a summary of key details and dates from the
20 matches
Mail list logo
