to help people have
that choice.
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: Dave Bell
Sent: mardi 5 avril 2022 13:03
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: Dave Bell ; Matthew Petach ;
Vasilenko Eduard ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hi Pascal
ep safe;
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Dave Bell
> *Sent:* mardi 5 avril 2022 9:45
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> *Cc:* Matthew Petach ; Vasilenko Eduard <
> vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>; NANOG
> *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re:
, automatically. That’s a bonus
that could become handy.
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: Dave Bell
Sent: mardi 5 avril 2022 9:45
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: Matthew Petach ; Vasilenko Eduard
; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
*From:* Matthew Petach
> *Sent:* mardi 5 avril 2022 0:29
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard
> *Cc:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Nicholas Warren <
> nwar...@barryelectric.com>; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
> Streiner ; NANOG
> *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not s
below, if there’s any article / doc?
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: Matthew Petach
Sent: mardi 5 avril 2022 0:29
To: Vasilenko Eduard
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Nicholas Warren
; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
Streiner ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:41 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
wrote:
> 240.0.01.1 address is appointed not to the router. It is appointed to
> Realm.
> It is up to the realm owner (ISP to Enterprise) what particular router (or
> routers) would do translation between realms.
>
Please forgive me as
...@geordish.org]
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:21 PM
To: Nicholas Warren
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard ; Abraham Y. Chen
; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Justin
Streiner ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
This seems pretty unworkable.
We would
hub...@cisco.com>>; Justin
Streiner mailto:strein...@gmail.com>>
Cc: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
2)When you extend each floor to use the whole IPv4 address pool, however,
you
4, 2022 9:21 PM
To: Nicholas Warren
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard ; Abraham Y. Chen
; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Justin
Streiner ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
This seems pretty unworkable.
We would now all need to maintain large CG
>
> From: NANOG On Behalf
> Of Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:28 AM
> To: Abraham Y. Chen ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> pthub...@cisco.com>; Justin Streiner
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hello Eduard
In the YADA draft 240.0.0.1 is effectively programmed on the shaft router loop
ack and used as router ID on the IGP inside the shaft…
240 addresses are the only ones advertised by the IGP
> To: Nicholas Warren ; Vasilenko Eduard
>> ; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
>> Streiner
>> Cc: NANOG
>> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
>> 202203261833.AYC
>>
>> Hello Nicholas
>>
>&
t works
>
> You were mostly there. Just that routing inside the shaft is probably a
> single IGP with no prefix attached, just links and router IDs.
>
>>
>> Shaft and realm are fun words. I see why they picked them.
>>
>
> Cool
>
> Keep safe;
>
: Monday, April 4, 2022 7:20 PM
To: Nicholas Warren ; Vasilenko Eduard
; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hello Nicholas
Sorry for the distraction with the names; I did not forge realm, found
Eduard ; Nicholas Warren
; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hello Eduard
As (badly) written, all ASes and IP addresses that exist today in the internet
could be either reused or moved
;
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: Vasilenko Eduard
> Sent: lundi 4 avril 2022 16:52
> To: Nicholas Warren ; Abraham Y. Chen
> ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ;
> Justin Streiner
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supporte
ol
Keep safe;
Pascal
> - Nich
>
> From: NANOG On Behalf
> Of Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:28 AM
> To: Abraham Y. Chen ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> ; Justin Streiner
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still no
al Message-
From: Nicholas Warren [mailto:nwar...@barryelectric.com]
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 5:33 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard ; Abraham Y. Chen
; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Justin
Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203
er
<mailto:strein...@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hi, Pascal:
1) " ... for the next version. ... ": I am not sure that I can wait
for so long, because I am
nderstands, No need for a new name “Shaft”.
Ed/
From: Abraham Y. Chen [mailto:ayc...@avinta.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2022 12:45 AM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Vasilenko Eduard
; Justin Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203
enko Eduard
; Justin Streiner
*Cc:* NANOG
*Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hi, Pascal:
1) " ... for the next version. ... ": I am not sure that I can
wait for so long, because I am asking for the basics. The
: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hi, Pascal:
1)" ... for the next version. ...":I am not sure that I can wait
for so long, because I am asking for the basics. The reason that I asked for an
IP packet head
at’s what I mean by baby steps
for those who want to.
Keep safe;
Pascal
*From:* Abraham Y. Chen
*Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard ; Pascal Thubert
(pthubert) ; Justin Streiner
*Cc:* NANOG
*Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 20220326
for those
who want to.
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49
To: Vasilenko Eduard ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
; Justin Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hi, Pascal:
What I would
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard ; Justin Streiner
; Abraham Y. Chen
*Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hello Eduard:
Did you just demonstrate that POPs cannot exist? Or that there cannot
be a Default Free Zone?
I agree with your real world issue
thread, and the yada-yatt draft.
Keep safe;
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Joe
> Maimon
> Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 5:46
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
> 20220326
On Behalf Of Justin
Streiner
Sent: dimanche 27 mars 2022 18:12
To: Abraham Y. Chen
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Abe:
To your first point about denying that anyone is being stopped from working on
IPv4, I'm referring to users
Owen DeLong wrote:
Yep… He’s absolutely right… We need to find a way to get the networks that
aren’t deploying IPv6 to
get off the dime and stop holding the rest of the world hostage in the IPv4
backwater.
Owen
You keep championing that approach, essentially unchanged for the past
20
Pv4?
>>> People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years.
>>> What will it take to be IPv6 only?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: NANOG >> <mailto:nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira...@nanog.org>> On Be
> On Mar 31, 2022, at 15:32 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Matthew Petach wrote:
>>
>>
>> In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4
>> somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4
>> address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy
> But as anyone who has tried to deploy IPv6-only networks quickly discovers,
> at the present time, you can't deploy an IPv6-only network with any
> success on the global internet today. There's too many IPv6-ish networks
> out there that haven't fully established their infrastructure to be
gt;> When are we going to give up on IPv4?
>> People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years.
>> What will it take to be IPv6 only?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: NANOG On Behalf Of
>> Owen DeLong via NANOG
>> Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52
Matthew Petach wrote:
In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4
somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4
address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without
also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:47 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
> If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
>> supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
>> seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
>>
>
> That is not an accurate statement.
>
> The
> On Mar 30, 2022, at 17:00 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Tom Beecher wrote:
>>
>>If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
>>supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
>>seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
>>
>>
> On Mar 30, 2022, at 09:16 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible
>> to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at
>> least 2015.
>>
>> Well… It’s a consensus
rg>> On Behalf Of Owen
> DeLong via NANOG
> Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52 PM
> To: Abraham Y. Chen mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>>
> Cc: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported
> re: 202203261833.AYC
Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:01 AM
To: Tom Beecher
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Tom Beecher wrote:
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
supporting the currently still dominant internet prot
of
IETF work.
Keep safe;
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of
> Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
> Sent: jeudi 31 mars 2022 14:36
> To: Joe Maimon ; Tom Beecher
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported r
: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Maimon
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:01 AM
To: Tom Beecher
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> If the IE
Tom Beecher wrote:
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement.
The IETF has achieved consensus on
; Cc: NANOG
> Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported
> re: 202203261833.AYC
>
> Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets
> introduced.
>
> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually imp
>
> If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
> supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
> seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
>
That is not an accurate statement.
The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually
impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in
the IETF since at least 2015.
Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus,
then perhaps it’s simply
*From:* NANOG *On Behalf
> Of *Owen DeLong via NANOG
> *Sent:* March 29, 2022 3:52 PM
> *To:* Abraham Y. Chen
> *Cc:* NANOG
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
> supported re: 202203261833.AYC
>
>
>
> Submit an Internet draft, s
29, 2022 3:52 PM
To: Abraham Y. Chen
Cc: NANOG
Subject: [EXT] Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets
introduced.
What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually
Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets
introduced.
What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to
gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least
2015.
Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea
Hi, Justin:
1) " denying that anyone is being stopped from */working on/*
IPv4, I'm referring to users being able to */communicate via /*IPv4.
": The two topics are quite different. It looks that we may have some
language issues here. So, allow me to stop.
Regards,
Abe
Abe:
To your first point about denying that anyone is being stopped from working
on IPv4, I'm referring to users being able to communicate via IPv4. I have
seen no evidence of that.
I'm not familiar with the process of submitting ideas to IETF, so I'll
leave that for others who are more
Hi, Justin:
1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ":
After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For
example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4
enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way,
50 matches
Mail list logo
