Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:11 AM Tim Howe wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:22:49 -0500 > Tom Beecher wrote: > > > > It doesn't take any OS upgrades for "getting everything to work on > > > IPv6". All the OS's and routers have supported IPv6 for more than a > > > decade. > > > > > > > There are

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I have qualms about these drafts also. However, even if the IETF does not move forward with any of them (not even to adopt them as WG items), that doesn’t mean they never will. Times change. Circumstances change. The IETF has changed its position on several (IMO) key issues during its

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

No quibble about the discussion happening on a NOG list, not at all. But frankly unless the proposal is even starting to move forward in the IETF process such that a standards change is possible, it's just noise. ( I don't predict that the draft being discussed ever gets that far anyways ; it has

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

On 14-03-2022 05:06, Fred Baker wrote: ... Where IPv6 has a problem today is with enterprise. IMHO, this is basically because enterprise is looking at the bottom line. If ISPs were to do what Mythic Beasts says they do, which is charge their users for address space, IPv6 is virtually free

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

> On Mar 11, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > Google's statistics... I'm not sure which of you I'm replying to. The comment was made on NANOG the other day that we should discount Google statistics because they have been promoting IPv6 for a decade. It's true that they have been doing

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I agree. iMO, this 240/4 issue is another one of those tussles in cyberspace . But I don’t fault IETF people or anyone else who pursues technical solutions to these types of problems as long as they are open and honest about

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

Hi, Ca By: 1)    Re: Ur. Pt. 1) " ... the number is 46% in the USA.  ":    Whoa! Your revised number is even higher. And, I could round it up to 50%! Seriously, please be specific about where are you reading the number that you are reporting? I commented after reading your second reference,

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: I believe that talking about removing IPv4 in any capacity /now/ is a disservice to the larger conversation. We mostly agree. Except that there is a significant vocal portion of the IPv6 spectrum that would like to start obsoleting IPv4 now. I have my

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

On 3/11/22 9:39 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: I am not really convinced that IPv4 can be ignored/marginalized/obsoleted without penetration reaching over 90%, globally. I feel like that's an unfair characterization / summarization. The VAST MAJORITY of the pro IPv6 discussions that I see are

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

Ca By wrote: Google’s number represents how many users reach it over ipv6. Given Google’s ubiquity in the usa, it is a fair barometer for the usa at large. Given google's popularity on handheld platforms, the users of which tend to be much less sensitive to IPv4 translation mechanisms

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 7:15 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Dear Ca By: > > 1)It appears that you are reading the Google graph too optimistically, > or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph are about 38%. The > average of the graph is about 36%. Citing "over 40%" from these is a

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

Dear Ca By: 1)    It appears that you are reading the Google graph too optimistically, or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph are about 38%. The average of the graph is about 36%. Citing "over 40%" from these is a gross exaggeration. In fact, the peaks were reached on

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Tom Beecher wrote: The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where there is some forcing event that requires it to be. Unless that occurs, people will continue to spend time and energy coming up with ways to squeeze the blood out of v4 that could have been used

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: One thing is for certain… If folks had put 0.10 as much effort into deploying IPv6 as has been put into arguing about whether or not ~17 /8s worth of IPv4 makes a meaningful difference to the internet as a whole, IPv4 would long since have become irrelevant as

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 16:01, Joe Greco wrote: > I am reading your response as to imply that this is somehow my fault > (for my networks) and that I am a poor leader for not having embraced > v6. If that's not what you meant, great, because I feel like there's > been systemic issues. No, I

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

> > Google sees over 40% of their users on ipv6,* with superior latency * > Uncle Geoff generally debunked this years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt-Xx2CmuQE_channel=NANOG On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:01 AM Ca By wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > >> On

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote: > > > I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still > > heavily v4. Mind boggling. > > Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll > be the same in

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:55:42AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote: > > I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still > > heavily v4. Mind boggling. > > Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll > be the same

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote: > I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still > heavily v4. Mind boggling. Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the price of

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:46:41AM -0800, David Conrad wrote: > Tim, > > On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe wrote: > > Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported > > v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs. > > Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but

V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

Tim, On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe wrote: > Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported > v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs. Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but despite hearing this with some frequency, I haven’t seen much data to

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:22:49 -0500 Tom Beecher wrote: > > It doesn't take any OS upgrades for "getting everything to work on > > IPv6". All the OS's and routers have supported IPv6 for more than a > > decade. > > > > There are lots of vendors, both inside and outside the networking space, >

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On 09/03/2022 00:25, Tom Beecher wrote: The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where there is some forcing event that requires it to be. In about two years time, IPv4 addresses will be worth on the order of $100/IP, assuming current trends hold. That's a lot of

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

> > It doesn't take any OS upgrades for "getting everything to work on > IPv6". All the OS's and routers have supported IPv6 for more than a > decade. > There are lots of vendors, both inside and outside the networking space, that have consistently released products with non-existant or broken

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

John Levine wrote: > FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be > useful it would require that every host on the Internet update its > network stack, which would take on the order of a decade... Those network stacks were updated for 240/4 in 2008-2009 -- a decade ago.

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I'm beginning to wonder if the internet will survive the ipv6 adoption debates. Here's the real problem which you all can promptly ignore: The IETF et al are full of bright technical people who can design protocols, packet formats, etc. But many of the major problems facing the internet are

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 11:30 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > > Given the draft lies about the status of 127/8. Words have meanings. > >When all of 127.0.0.0/8 was reserved for loopback addressing, IPv4 >addresses were not yet recognized as scarce. Today, there is no >justification for

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Given the draft lies about the status of 127/8. Words have meanings. When all of 127.0.0.0/8 was reserved for loopback addressing, IPv4 addresses were not yet recognized as scarce. Today, there is no justification for allocating 1/256 of all IPv4 addresses for this purpose, when

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

One thing is for certain… If folks had put 0.10 as much effort into deploying IPv6 as has been put into arguing about whether or not ~17 /8s worth of IPv4 makes a meaningful difference to the internet as a whole, IPv4 would long since have become irrelevant as it must eventually be. Owen >

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

John R. Levine writes: > This still doesn't mean that screwing around with 240/4 or, an even worse > 127/8 minus 127/24, is a good idea. I hope you'll be slightly mollified to learn that it's actually 127/8 minus 127/16. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127/ That's

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

John Levine writes: > FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. As people will be aware, we have a different draft on this issue, so I'm also going to pipe up here. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ (Our draft offers no specific plan for

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where there is some forcing event that requires it to be. Unless that occurs, people will continue to spend time and energy coming up with ways to squeeze the blood out of v4 that could have been used to get v6 going instead. I

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

John Levine wrote: Oh, absolutely. I have conversations with my hosting provider in which they tell me that nobody has ever asked for IPv6 other than me, and they had no idea their upstream (Spectrum) had native IPv6. So I keep using a tunnel. Why do you think you need IPv6? What is the

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 19:25 -0500, Tom Beecher wrote: > > > The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time > where there is some forcing event that requires it to be.  > > Unless that occurs, people will continue to spend time and energy > coming up with ways to squeeze the

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On 8 Mar 2022 19:14:34 -0500 "John Levine" wrote: > I have conversations with my hosting provider in which they tell me > that nobody has ever asked for IPv6 other than me, Oh you too? I got that response all the time. Then I when I press, they usually say they've had one, two, three, maybe

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

> > Is it not past time we admit that we have no real idea what the > schedule or level of effort will be for making IPv6 ubiquitous? This > year it was more than last year and next year it'll probably be more > than this year. The more precise predictions all seem to have fallen > flat. > The

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

It appears that William Herrin said: >On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine wrote: >> FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be >> useful it would require >> that every host on the Internet update its network stack, > >Hi John, > >That's incorrect and

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine wrote: > FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be useful > it would require > that every host on the Internet update its network stack, Hi John, That's incorrect and obviously so. While repurposing 240/4 as general

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

It appears that Anne Mitchell said: >> Cc: NANOG , Greg Skinner , >> "Karandikar, Abhay" , Rama Ati >, Bob Corner GMAIL , "Hsing, T. >Russell" , "Chen, Henry C.J." >, ST Hsieh , "Chen, Abraham Y." > >> > >This is a whole lot of cc:s to people who aren't even part of this group/list. > One