Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying

Cisco and Juniper routers have had v6 functionality for over 10 years. Lucent/Nokia, and others. Check UNL list at https://www.iol.unh.edu/registry/usgv6 for v6 compliant routers and switches. John Lee On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:48 PM John Levine wrote: > It appears that Michael Thomas said: >

Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying

It appears that Michael Thomas said: >Both have sprawling product lines though even with fsvo big iron. It >would be nice to hear that they can build out big networks, but given >the use of ipv6 in mobile I assume they can. I wonder what the situation >is for enterprise which doesn't have any

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mans Nilsson wrote: With proper layering, network addresses including IP ones, certainly, uniquely identify *hosts*. However, with proper layering, *applications* only require uniqueness of IP+Port, which is enough for the worldwide IPv4 network. As a result, NAT won the battle against IPv6.

Re: FERC releases final report on Texas power outages (2021)

More specifics: Centerpoint is charging Minnesota natgas customers a surcharge specific to the Feb 2021 event. It is a line item listed as the 'Feb 2021 Weather Event' on the October and November bills with a per-therm surcharge. The surcharge rate was different between Oct and Nov.

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 09:04:59PM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > Mans Nilsson wrote: > > > The essence of an IP address is that it is unique. The larger the network > > area is that recognizes it as

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> > It may help IPv6 deployment if more V4 addresses are eventually > released and allocated > No, it won't. The biggest impediment to IPv6 adoption is that too many people invest too much time and resources in finding ways to squeeze more blood from the IPv4 stone. If tomorrow, RFCs were

Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying

On 11/19/21 2:44 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Michael Thomas said: And just as impossible since it would pop it out of the fast path. Does big iron support ipv6 these days? My research associate Ms. Google advises me that Juniper does:

Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying

It appears that Michael Thomas said: >And just as impossible since it would pop it out of the fast path. Does >big iron support ipv6 these days? My research associate Ms. Google advises me that Juniper does:

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:26:23PM -0800 Quoting John Gilmore (g...@toad.com): > =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson wrote: > > The only viable future is to convert [to IPv6]. This is not > > group-think, it is simple math. > > OK. And in

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

David Conrad wrote: > Doesn't this presume the redeployed addresses would be allocated > via a market rather than via the RIRs? > > If so, who would receive the money? You ask great questions. The community can and should do the engineering to extend the IP implementations. If that doesn't

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Fred Baker wrote: > I tend to think that if we can somehow bless a prefix and make be > global unicast address space, it needs to become Global Unicast > Address Space. Yes, I agree. The intention is that with the passage of time, each prefix becomes more and more reachable, til it's as close

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson wrote: > The only viable future is to convert [to IPv6]. This is not > group-think, it is simple math. OK. And in the long run, we are all dead. That is not group-think, it is simple math. Yet that's not a good argument for deciding not to improve our lives

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Nick Hilliard wrote: >> consider three hosts on a broadcast domain: A, B and >> C. A uses the lowest address, B accepts a lowest address, but C does >> not. Then A can talk to B, B can talk to C, but C cannot talk to A. >> This does not seem to be addressed in the draft. Section

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:24 PM David Conrad wrote: > ... > Some (not me) might argue it could (further) hamper IPv6 deployment by > diverting limited resources. It may help IPv6 deployment if more V4 addresses are eventually released and allocated Assuming the RIRs would ultimately like to

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Joe Maimon wrote: > And all thats needed to be done is to drop this ridiculous .0 for > broadcast compatibility from standards.why is this even controversial? Not to put words in his mouth, but that's how original BSD maintainer Mike Karels seemed to feel when we raised this issue for

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/21 10:15 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:04 AM Michael Thomas wrote: I don't think you can overstate how ASIC's made changing anything pretty much impossible. It's why all of the pissing and moaning about what ipv6 looked like completely missed the point. There

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Zu wrote: One anecdote (the non-technical grandma) illustrates a very real problem that would need to be addressed -- there are non-technical people (of all ages, if your concerned about ageism) which will need to implement technical changes for which they are not equipped with the skills

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: LLA and ULA and whatever random prefix you may wish to use for loopback, whether in IPv6 or even IPv4 have none of these qualities. And if we implement the proposal at hand, which as near as I can tell you are supporting, that changes. Having trouble following your

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:32 AM John Curran wrote: > There’s this organization called the Internet Engineering Task Force that has > been working hard to establish long-term financial independence and stability > via the IETF Endowment project – > > Several of

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:22 AM Zu wrote: > One anecdote (the non-technical grandma) illustrates a very real problem that > would need to be addressed -- there are non-technical people (of all ages, if > your concerned about ageism) which will need to implement technical changes > for which

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 18 Nov 2021, at 8:14 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote: > That suggests an idea: > > Repurpose these addresses and allow the RIRs to sell them in the IPv4 > secondary markets with some earmark for the funds. Plus or minus > perhaps some worthy causes for "free" (not quite free but old school) >

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:04 AM Michael Thomas wrote: > I don't think you can overstate how ASIC's made changing anything pretty > much impossible. > It's why all of the pissing and moaning about what ipv6 looked like > completely missed the point. There was a fuse lit in 1992 to when the >

Re: OpenDNS contact

Tell your friend to head over to talosintelligence.com/support and file a dispute. — Sent from my  iPad > On Nov 19, 2021, at 08:41, Mark Costlow wrote: > > Does anyone have a contact within OpenDNS? A friend's business is in > extreme pain because a false-positive blacklisting and he

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

One anecdote (the non-technical grandma) illustrates a very real problem that would need to be addressed -- there are non-technical people (of all ages, if your concerned about ageism) which will need to implement technical changes for which they are not equipped with the skills to do. One

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:15 AM Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Joe Maimon wrote on 19/11/2021 14:30: > > Its very viable, since its a local support issue only. Your ISP can > > advise you that they will support you using the lowest number and you > > may then use it if you canall you may need is a

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > Since, as you point out, use of the other addresses in 127.0.0.0/8 is not > particularly widespread, having a prefix > dedicated to that purpose globally vs. allowing each site that cares to > choose their own doesn’t seem like the

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

For what it’s worth, it's also being discussed in a couple of subreddits. Total # of comments is about 500, so far. https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/qvuyor/new_rfc_to_redefine_loop_back_and_allow_127100_to/

Weekly Global IPv4 Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Gobal IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/21 7:38 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Actually, CIDR didn’t require upgrading every end-node, just some of them. That’s what made it doable… Updating only routers, not end-nodes. Another thing that made it doable is that there were a LOT fewer end-nodes and a much smaller vendor

Re: OpenDNS contact

Hi Mark, I can help. I'll reach out to you directly. Thanks, Chris On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:40 AM Mark Costlow wrote: > > Does anyone have a contact within OpenDNS? A friend's business is in > extreme pain because a false-positive blacklisting and he hasn't been > able to find a human to

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

So see, that was kinda my view, though I hadn't realized there was a kernel hack advancing the football... - Original Message - > From: "Owen DeLong" > To: "William Herrin" > Cc: "jra" , "nanog" > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 9:28:01 AM > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/21 8:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote: these measurements would be great if there could be a full research- style paper, with methodology artifacts, and reproducible results. otherwise it disappears in the gossip stream of mailimg lists. Maybe an experimental rfc making it a rfc 1918-like

Re: FERC releases final report on Texas power outages (2021)

Yeah, some additional specifics about this would be helpful. I see no new charges on my nat gas gas bills in my state (NY) going back 4 months that I still had laying around. On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:32 AM Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote: > Yet, in spite of claims of TX being an island,

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:35 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > I’m all for IPv6 having better implementations than IPv4 rather than mere > feature parity. Me too, just not in a dystopian Harrison Bergeron sort of way. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On Nov 18, 2021, at 12:54 , John Gilmore wrote: > > Steven Bakker wrote: >> The ask is to update every ip stack in the world (including validation, >> equipment retirement, reconfiguration, etc)... > > This raises a great question. > > Is it even *doable*? What's the *risk*? What will

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 07:39 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> >>> And I think the basic contention is that the vast majority of 127/8 is not >>> in use. Apples to oranges, indeed. >> This contention is provably

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

these measurements would be great if there could be a full research- style paper, with methodology artifacts, and reproducible results. otherwise it disappears in the gossip stream of mailimg lists. randy

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 07:23 , Dave Taht wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> Since, as you point out, use of the other addresses in 127.0.0.0/8 is not >> particularly widespread, having a prefix >> dedicated to that purpose globally vs. allowing each

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> > You are proposing a deal involving paper money you have on your person > to your fellow passengers on the Titanic; that is the essence of your > proposed bet hedging. Having studied the market for IPv4, it is a no- > brainer to realise the driving force behind all these schemes. Delaying >

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Nick Hilliard wrote: Joe Maimon wrote on 19/11/2021 14:30: Its very viable, since its a local support issue only. Your ISP can advise you that they will support you using the lowest number and you may then use it if you canall you may need is a single patched/upgraded router or

Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: I don’t see the difference between 6 and 7 usable addresses on all the /29s in the world as actually making a significant impact on the usable lifespan of IPv4. Owen This idea gets better each time I think about it. The changes and support required would

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:37:49AM -0800, John Gilmore wrote: > Steven Bakker wrote: > > > ... the gain is 4 weeks of > > > extra ip address space in terms of estimated consumption. > > > > The burn rate is the best argument I've seen against the idea so far. > > I'm glad you think so, since

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon wrote: And I think the basic contention is that the vast majority of 127/8 is not in use. Apples to oranges, indeed. This contention is provably false for some definitions of “in use”. Determining the extent of this would be

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Joe Maimon wrote on 19/11/2021 14:30: Its very viable, since its a local support issue only. Your ISP can advise you that they will support you using the lowest number and you may then use it if you canall you may need is a single patched/upgraded router or firewall to get your additional

Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

I don’t see the difference between 6 and 7 usable addresses on all the /29s in the world as actually making a significant impact on the usable lifespan of IPv4. Owen > On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:33 , Dave Taht wrote: > > I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) first >

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Can you be more specific about what changes to IPv6 you believe would resolve the issue? Owen > On Nov 18, 2021, at 01:43 , b...@uu3.net wrote: > > No, you are not alone. This just gets kinda pathetic. > It also shows how an IPv6 is a failure. > (No please, leave me alone all you IPv6

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > 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

Re: FERC releases final report on Texas power outages (2021)

Which is a double whammy for Californians after Enron managed to triple our electric rates practically overnight through their nefarious acts. Owen > On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:31 , Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote: > > Yet, in spite of claims of TX being an island, customers all over the country >

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:40 , Jerry Cloe wrote: > > > > Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public > To: nanog mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>; > This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed? > >

Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:03 , John Levine wrote: > > 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. >> >>

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Nick Hilliard wrote: John Gilmore wrote on 19/11/2021 01:54: Lowest address is in the most recent Linux and FreeBSD kernels, but not yet in any OS distros. lowest addresses will not be viable until widely supported on router (including CPE) platforms. This is hard to test in the wild -

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 16:32 , Sean Donelan wrote: > > 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

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

This will break a significant number of existing deployments where people have come to depend on a feature in Linux where any address within 127.0.0.0/8 can be “listened” and operate as a valid loopback address without configuring the addresses individually as unicast on the interface. In fact,

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On Nov 18, 2021, at 4:31 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > as a measurement kinda person, i wonder if anyone has looked at how much > progress has been made on getting hard coded dependencies on D, E, 127, > ... out of the firmware in all networked devices. At least the E space is largely usable

OpenDNS contact

Does anyone have a contact within OpenDNS? A friend's business is in extreme pain because a false-positive blacklisting and he hasn't been able to find a human to appeal to. The source of the bad initial report has retracted it and the usual "remove me from this blacklist" form has been filled

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

John Gilmore wrote on 19/11/2021 01:54: Lowest address is in the most recent Linux and FreeBSD kernels, but not yet in any OS distros. lowest addresses will not be viable until widely supported on router (including CPE) platforms. This is hard to test in the wild - ripe atlas will only test

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mans Nilsson wrote: The essence of an IP address is that it is unique. The larger the network area is that recognizes it as unique, the better it is. With proper layering, network addresses including IP ones, certainly, uniquely identify *hosts*. However, with proper layering, *applications*