> On 7 Mar 2024, at 06:50, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> The last case is so common that every first-line adopts the strategy of
> 'pinging' you, regardless how good and clear information you provide, they
> ask some soft-ball question, to see if you're still engaged.
No way - I never understood
> I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed referee.
> For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the eMail etiquette
> established by a standard, yet never identified. It seriously distracted our
> attention from the topic of essence. You now have
> 2) Assume that Google decided that they would no longer support IPv4 for any
> of their services at a specific date a couple of years in the future. […] I
> really expect something like this to be the next part of the end game for
> IPv4.
It’s never gonna happen … why would Google, or any
>> We don't need to extend IPv4, we need to figure out why we are in this
>> dual-stack mess, which was never intended, and how to get out of it.
>
> it was intended. it was the original transition plan. like many things
> about ipv6, it could have been a bit better thought out.
What was not
How big would a network need to get, in order to come close to exhausing
RFC1918 address space? […] If one was to allocate 10 addresses to each host,
that means it would require 1,789,132 hosts to exhaust the space.
Total availability is not usually the problem - poor allocation of space done
On a related note, I recently noticed Google became reachable again over IPv6
from Cogent (I didn't have any automated testing in place so this can well have
happened long ago - last posts I can find about the issue are from mid-2020).
It's apparently through Tata/6453 so looks like
Do you mind following up on Matthew’s request for details - really interested
to see the threat model there and how the RPKI part played out?
On 20 Jul 2023, at 18:06, Pete Rohrman wrote:
All,
Cogent has shut down the compromised router. This issue is resolved. Thank
you all
7 matches
Mail list logo
