Excellent summary of the USG position as of 2019. It is, um, nearly 5
years later, has any of these stuff evolved?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:58 PM John Curran wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2024, at 12:48 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> DoD's /8s are usually squatted by networks that run out of private IPv4
On 13/02/2024 7:39 p.m., Tom Beecher wrote:
Except we aren't really "post-pandemic" despite the claims that we
are.
"post-pandemic" the way that I used it was to mean "after the COVID
lockdowns, with close to normal travel gatherings".
It certainly wasn't intended to be commentary
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 1:36 PM John Levine wrote:
> If anyone has contacts at either I would appreciate it.
https://developer.amazon.com/support/amazonbot
probably returned as a result of searching "amazonbot" on your favourite
search engine.
On Jan 31, 2024, at 12:48 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
DoD's /8s are usually squatted by networks that run out of private IPv4 space.
Even though it is very risky to steal resources from an organization
that can deploy a black helicopter or a nuclear warhead over you, for
some reason like it not
One day I set up the world's lamest content farm. You can see it here:
https://www.web.sp.am/
While humans tend not to find its six billion pages very interesting,
some web spiders are entranced. In the past week or so, Amazon's
amazonbot has visited it 6 million times, and OpenAI's gptbot 2.6
Christopher,
On Feb 13, 2024, at 4:14 PM, Christopher Hawker wrote:
> This is a second chance to purposefully ration out a finite resource.
Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but other than more players and _way_ more money,
the dynamics of [limited resource, unlimited demand] don’t appear to have
It appears that Tom Beecher said:
>> We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our
>> case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the
>> community.
>
>Respectfully, if you're just putting your case out there and hoping that
>people come around to
>
> Except we aren't really "post-pandemic" despite the claims that we are.
>
"post-pandemic" the way that I used it was to mean "after the COVID
lockdowns, with close to normal travel gatherings".
It certainly wasn't intended to be commentary on the current state of
COVID, if it's referred to
>
> We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our
> case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the
> community.
Respectfully, if you're just putting your case out there and hoping that
people come around to your position, it's never going to
On 11/02/2024 7:56 a.m., Tom Beecher wrote:
Yup. Post pandemic, the unfortunate hotel situation, and a non-zero
number of companies still have tight travel budgets.
It's been slowly creeping back though.
Except we aren't really "post-pandemic" despite the claims that we are.
As long as
Hi Bill,
I agree, that a more viable path may be to look at moving it from reserved to
unicast (which in itself would be relatively easy to accomplish). Once this has
been done we could then look at possible use-cases for it instead of trying to
trying to jump 4 steps ahead.
The idea to this
Hi David,
In order to forecast exhaustion rates, we needed something to measure against.
It would be rather naive of us to assume that allocation policy would remain
the same tomorrow as it was yesterday, if APNIC received a /8 from IANA. This
is where we looked at pre-prop127 delegation sizes
Christopher,
On Feb 13, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Christopher Hawker wrote:
> Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the potential
> positive impact that this could bring.
Let’s assume that the class E checks in all IP stacks and application code that
do or can connect to the
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:34 PM Christopher Hawker wrote:
> Having [240/4] reclassified as unicast space is indeed much easier.
Hi Chris,
If I were spending my time on the effort, that's what I'd pursue. It's
a low-impact change with no reasonable counter-argument I've seen. As
you noted, half
Hello John,
It'll only take "98 years" if we drag our feet. In practicality, I'm of the
belief that the first prefix from 240/4 can be delegated in as little as
optimistically 2 years, and conservatively 5 years.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
From: NANOG on
Per my original email, looking at current exhaustion rates in the APNIC service
region, if we stuck to allocating space to new entities and maintained
allocating a maximum of a /22 to networks, just 3 x /8 would last over 20
years. This should be a more than sufficient timeframe for a much
We understand that having 240/4 reclassified as public space for
assignment/allocation by RIRs will take some time and we are not expecting it
to happen overnight. Having it reclassified as unicast space is indeed much
easier. The Linux kernel already supports this (thanks Dave Taht), Windows
Hi Tom,
We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our case,
explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the community.
I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes we
understand the technical work behind getting this
>
> PS: I know this because it will take 98 years of process before the
> RIRs can start allocating it.
>
Intense optimism detected!
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:27 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) said:
> >And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs
It appears that Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) said:
>And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs out?
That will be a hundred years from now, so who cares?
R's,
John
PS: I know this because it will take 98 years of process before the
RIRs can start allocating it.
On 2/13/24 21:47, Hunter Fuller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:17 PM Bryan Holloway wrote:
https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Routing+Protocol+Overview
Ping across? Sure. Ok. But I wouldn't rely on it for anything critical.
Well that's certainly interesting.
You will not see me
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:17 PM Bryan Holloway wrote:
> https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Routing+Protocol+Overview
>
> Ping across? Sure. Ok. But I wouldn't rely on it for anything critical.
Well that's certainly interesting.
You will not see me sticking up for MikroTik's
Once upon a time, richey goldberg said:
> They support /31s and have for some time. The trick we found is that the
> Mikrotik has to be the higher numbered IP and network address has to be the
> lower
I would not classify that as "support /31s" - that's "there's a
work-around that handles
And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs out?
They support /31s and have for some time. The trick we found is that the
Mikrotik has to be the higher numbered IP and network address has to be the
lower
add address=x.x.x.61/31 interface=ether1--dia network=x.x.x.60
Then point your default route at the lower numbered IP in the /31.
I use a CCR2004 at home as it's one of the only devices that could handle
the 4Gb/s XGS-PON on pppoe. I've got an IPoE GPON (1000/500) failover, v4/v6
dual stack everywhere, incoming vpn and ipsec tunnels to other MT's and it
run's great. The only problem I have run into is if you run the 10G
That's disappointing.
Thanks for the info. What a strange thing to not support.
--TimH
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:17:03 +0100
Bryan Holloway wrote:
> Folks have been known to kludge around it, but it is not officially
> supported by ROS, not even in v7. To wit:
>
>
Folks have been known to kludge around it, but it is not officially
supported by ROS, not even in v7. To wit:
https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Routing+Protocol+Overview
Ping across? Sure. Ok. But I wouldn't rely on it for anything critical.
Caveat emptor.
On 2/13/24 18:43, Tim
So, just FYI, we just tested a /31 on Eth1 of the L009 and it
seems to work fine(?)
--TimH
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:04:50 -0800
Tim Howe wrote:
> That's very disappointing.
>
> I acquired a Mikrotik L009 router to play with recently, and it's been one
> let-down after another; now this.
>
>
Probably should've been clearer ... this is jaguar network AS30781 in
France.
(Thank you to those who have already reached out!)
Apologies for the noise ...
On 2/13/24 18:05, Bryan Holloway wrote:
If anyone here is lurking from Jaguar Network, could you reach out to me
off-list, please?
I
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:05 AM Bryan Holloway wrote:
> Let me know when they support /31s.
A /31 is configured in RouterOS as a point-to-point interface. You put
your IP in the "address" field and their IP in the "network" field.
That's how I've been doing it since I started using RouterOS in
Tim,
How is that Mikrotik a let down?
Ryan
From: NANOG on behalf of Tim Howe
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:04:50 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when
If anyone here is lurking from Jaguar Network, could you reach out to me
off-list, please?
I think you're blocking at least one, possibly more of our subnets.
Thank you!
- bryan
That's very disappointing.
I acquired a Mikrotik L009 router to play with recently, and it's been one
let-down after another; now this.
--TimH
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:04:45 +0100
Bryan Holloway wrote:
> Let me know when they support /31s.
>
>
> On 2/13/24 08:07, Dave Taht wrote:
> > And
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:03 AM Christopher Hawker wrote:
> [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on
> AusNOG, SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers
> to engage in the discussion on their respective forums.]
Chris,
Do not cross-post lists. Many of the folks
Hi everyone,
I am a masters student of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science at the
University of Hull and I am in need of a suitable project for my final semester.
Prior to studying I was heavily involved in the formation and building of an
ISP network in my local area. We built out to
Let me know when they support /31s.
On 2/13/24 08:07, Dave Taht wrote:
And routerOS is one of
the more up to date platforms.
On 2/12/24 11:07 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
if I could use the controversy to talk to why it has been so hard to
deploy ipv6 to the edge and how to fix that problem instead rather
than triggering people, it would be helpful.
1. My provider, AT, keeps saying "we don't support IPv6." I've
written
Hi,
I'm not sure if DTAG is still doing microwave, but as it is near Berlin you
could ask Plusnet (plusnet.de) if they already have coverage in that area or
are willing to install microwave hardware in a nearby tower.
If you have trouble getting in touch let me know and I will try to contact
I am looking for a microwave point to point provider in Oberkrämer, Germany.
Any suggestions? This is for 1 gig of internet access.
Thanks
[cid:image001.jpg@01DA5E58.DCC39870]
Robert DeVita
CEO and Founder
t: (469) 581-2160
|
m: (469) 441-8864
e:
>
> Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This
> won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.
It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> [Note: I
> On 12 Feb 2024, at 6:01 pm, Richard Laager wrote:
>
> On 2024-02-12 15:18, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:07:52PM -0500, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>> I was making an observation that the presentation material was
>>> referring to "RPKI-Invalid" while their
Hello all,
[Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, SANOG
and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the discussion on
their respective forums.]
Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...
Since September 1981, 240/4 has been
43 matches
Mail list logo
