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: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203210957.AYC

--- NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 Message: 5 Date: 20 Mar 2022 13:58:18 -0400 From: "John Levine" To:nanog@nanog.org Cc:ayc...@avinta.com Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Message-ID:<20220320175819.7c27c3976...@ary.qy> Content-Type: text/plain; ch

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203210955.AYC

Hi, Randy: Great analogy. Regards, Abe (2022-03-21 15:30) -- NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 Message: 12 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 03:08:55 -0700 From: Randy Bush To: Joe Maimon Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203210953.AYC

n To: John Levine,nanog@nanog.org Cc:ayc...@avinta.com Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Message-ID:<62384606.2030...@jmaimon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed John Levine wrote: It appears that Abraham Y. Chen said: C.R

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC

> Is this is how the IETF ivory tower residents likes to try and > suppress debate the ietf is an echo chamber; and if you are not in it, you do not count. https://archive.psg.com/051000.sigcomm-ivtf.pdf randy

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC

John Levine wrote: It appears that Abraham Y. Chen said: C.Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses. D.I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 requesting IETF to reactivate the

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC

I was referring to the relative number of responses to the most recent Schoen IPv4 maintenance draft at the link you gave (quoted by me), as compared to the responses here on the NANOG list. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I would argue that Schoen and the co-authors of that draft have spent time

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC

> > I wouldn’t assume that the small number of responses indicates a lack of > interest. It’s possible that people haven’t commented because they’ve seen > this topic play itself out over the years, and although they have opinions, > they don’t feel compelled to post them there. (Interestingly

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC

It appears that Abraham Y. Chen said: >     C.    Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. >Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses. > >     D.    I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 >requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support.

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC

> On Mar 15, 2022, at 7:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > Firstly nobody uses mailing list digests as references. Secondly anyone can > post to the mailing list, you just need to subscribe. If you read the thread > you can see there is no interest in this. > >

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (Was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Re: 2022031711315.AYC

ed, 16 Mar 2022 08:28:36 -0400 From: Tom Beecher To: Greg Skinner Cc:b...@theworld.com, "North American Network Operators' Group" Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Message-ID: Cont

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203171153.AYC

Chen" Cc: Mark Andrews , NANOG Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203161019.AYC Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 2)Re: Ur. Pt. 2) " So replace every CPE device, including ... ": It is evident that you even did not glance

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203171135.AYC

To: Tom Beecher Cc:b...@theworld.com, North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Message-ID:<109db49c-2471-4fe2-ac68-e4eeafe1c...@icloud.com> Content-Type: text

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203171125.AYC

- NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 19 Message: 35 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:48:04 +1100 From: Mark Andrews To: Owen DeLong Cc: Sylvain Baya,b...@theworld.com, Niels Bakker ,nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID:<1c6b1ad8-399e-4b3c-b3ad-a5c846f62...@isc.

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203162242.AYC

Hi, Fred: 1)    " ... you will need to replace the existing DNS and DHCP systems...  ":    I am glad that you have touched the next level of considerations. Operating an RAN with one 240/4 netblock, there will be more than enough IP addresses to assign to all client premises. So, the EzIP

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

It’s a business problem for the RIR’s. Selling / leasing known defective products is against lots of consumer law. -- Mark Andrews > On 17 Mar 2022, at 03:43, Owen DeLong wrote: > >  > >>> On Mar 15, 2022, at 19:23 , Mark Andrews wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16 Mar 2022, at 02:54, Owen

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: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

> On Mar 15, 2022, at 19:23 , Mark Andrews wrote: > > > >> On 16 Mar 2022, at 02:54, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> >> Having spent nearly 15 years on the ARIN Advisory Council, I think I’m able >> to claim some detailed knowledge on the subject. >> >> In general, the RIRs themselves

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203161019.AYC

Message: 42 > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:04:01 +1100 > From: Mark Andrews > To: "Abraham Y. Chen" > Cc: Tom Beecher , "Chen, Abraham Y." >, NANOG > > Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC > Message-ID: > >

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203161019.AYC

NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 18 Message: 42 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:04:01 +1100 From: Mark Andrews To: "Abraham Y. Chen" Cc: Tom Beecher , "Chen, Abraham Y." , NANOG Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Message-ID: Content-Type: text

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: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

I think I basically understand the policy and allocation processes. What I was looking for was some characterization of the current trends for IPv4 requests, particularly how urgent and worthy they might be and the amount of space being sought. RIRs will receive those requests. The rest of us

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

> On 16 Mar 2022, at 02:54, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > Having spent nearly 15 years on the ARIN Advisory Council, I think I’m able > to claim some detailed knowledge on the subject. > > In general, the RIRs themselves maintain neutrality about such things, > looking to their >

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC

>> with a slight extra step that produced a series of surprising results. In >> particular, we took the "Caveats" above to our hearts before proceeding. So, >> please put such issues behind you while reviewing our work. Thanks, >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Abe (2022-03-14 14:

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC

..@herrin.us> Cc: NANOG <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID: <79746dec-8c8b-4d6d-b1d6-cb0a0003a...@gmail.com> <mailto:79746dec-8c8b-4d6d-b1d6-cb0a0003a...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Having spent nearly 15 years on the ARIN Advisory Council, I think I’m able to claim some detailed knowledge on the subject. In general, the RIRs themselves maintain neutrality about such things, looking to their respective communities for input on what to do. However, so long as the IETF and

Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Dear NANOG-ers, Hope this email finds you in good health! Please see my comments below, inline... Le mardi 15 mars 2022, a écrit : > > Hi Barry, Thanks for your email, brother! > But the RIRs are the ones fielding requests for IPv4 space, and have > some notion of how policy implementation

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

But the RIRs are the ones fielding requests for IPv4 space, and have some notion of how policy implementation might work in practice, so should have a lot of useful input. On March 14, 2022 at 00:45 niels=na...@bakker.net (Niels Bakker) wrote: > * b...@theworld.com (b...@theworld.com) [Mon 14

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203141407.AYC

> NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15 > Message: 17 > Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:26:11 -0700 > From: Fred Baker > To: "Abraham Y. Chen" , William Herrin > > Cc: NANOG > Subject: Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock > Message-ID: <79746dec-8c8b-4

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203141407.AYC

e: 17 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:26:11 -0700 From: Fred Baker To: "Abraham Y. Chen" , William Herrin Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID: <79746dec-8c8b-4d6d-b1d6-cb0a0003a...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=

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

ot;, Ca By Cc: NANOG Subject: 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)) Message-ID:<7e0b159f-43ac-4507-8fb9-3120b2b90...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; c

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: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Mar 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > 2)On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically > reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4 netblock > back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means whether to > change

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203140004.AYC

Hi, John: 0)    Thanks for your comments. 1)    Re: Ur. Pt. 1): I have recently been informed of such activities. So far, my attempt to submit a draft and to reach the group chairs have not been successful. 2)    Re: Ur. Pt. 2): Our work looks very much inline with your Unicast project. 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 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: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 7:55 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 12:29 PM Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > What's the actual proposal for 240/4? > > Is it: "Make this usable by me on my /intranet/?" > > Is it: "Make this usable across the internet between bespoke endpoints?" > >

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 12:29 PM Christopher Morrow wrote: > What's the actual proposal for 240/4? > Is it: "Make this usable by me on my /intranet/?" > Is it: "Make this usable across the internet between bespoke endpoints?" > Is it: "Make this usable for any services/users on the wider

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

* b...@theworld.com (b...@theworld.com) [Mon 14 Mar 2022, 00:31 CET]: Personally I'd rather hear from the RIRs regarding the value or not of making more IPv4 space such as 240/4 available. They're on the front lines of this. You've got your policy development process diagram upside down. The

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Personally I'd rather hear from the RIRs regarding the value or not of making more IPv4 space such as 240/4 available. They're on the front lines of this. I think sometimes what we're manipulating in these debates is the time factor: Someone with a worthy, immediate, urgent need versus some

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Christopher Morrow wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 10:39 AM William Herrin > wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 1:22 AM Joe Maimon mailto:jmai...@jmaimon.com>> wrote: > The true dilemma is that any amelioration of IPv4 scarcity may indeed > contribute to

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 10:39 AM William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 1:22 AM Joe Maimon wrote: > > The true dilemma is that any amelioration of IPv4 scarcity may indeed > > contribute to further delaying mass global IPv6 adoption, regardless of > > whose effort and time is involved.

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

> Yet the four largest cable networks and all of the mobile networks in the > US have had full IPv6 support for years as do AWS, Google, Azure, Digital > Ocean, Linode, and many other hosting providers. > > Could you explain what "most" means where you are? a vast number of large non-us mobile

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

It appears that Joe Maimon said: >Saku Ytti wrote: >> What if many/most large CDN, cloud, tier1 would commonly announce a >> plan to drop all IPv4 at their edge 20 years from now? How would that >> change our work? What would we stop doing and what would we start doing? > >I cant see how it

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 1:22 AM Joe Maimon wrote: > The true dilemma is that any amelioration of IPv4 scarcity may indeed > contribute to further delaying mass global IPv6 adoption, regardless of > whose effort and time is involved. > > And I find advocating for that to be wrong and perhaps to

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: Because it is a single Internet, and what we do in some parts of Internet will affect others? Because, at least in my case, I'm investing my efforts in what it seems to be the best in the long-term for the global community, not my personal preferences?

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Saku Ytti wrote: What if many/most large CDN, cloud, tier1 would commonly announce a plan to drop all IPv4 at their edge 20 years from now? How would that change our work? What would we stop doing and what would we start doing? I cant see how it would change or do anything IPv6-related

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 18:19, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > 3)" ... Changes to hardware and software to make use of 240/4 as ordinary > unicast IP addresses can and should proceed in parallel to such debate. ": > Agreed. Since through the EzIP Project, we have identified that the >

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: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Hi, Bill: 1)    Thanks for confirming my understanding of the 240/4 history. Basically, those in charge of the Internet appear to be leaving the community in the state of informal debates, since there is no more formal IPv4 working group. 2)    On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Because it is a single Internet, and what we do in some parts of Internet will affect others? Because, at least in my case, I'm investing my efforts in what it seems to be the best in the long-term for the global community, not my personal preferences? El 12/3/22 9:10, "William Herrin"

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:58 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: > Exactly, many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: IPv6 is > the only viable long-term solution. > > The effort to “reinvent” any part of IPv4 or patches to it, then test that > everything keeps working

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Exactly, many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: IPv6 is the only viable long-term solution. The effort to “reinvent” any part of IPv4 or patches to it, then test that everything keeps working as expected, versus the benefits and gained time, it is much best invested in

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

> On Mar 10, 2022, at 8:44 PM, Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > IIRC, at some time, perhaps when CIDR was deployed widely and > having something other than IPv4 was a hot topic, there was a > discussion on releasing 240/4 in IETF. Reasonings against it were > that the released space will be

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))

Greco <mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net>,nanog@nanog.org Subject: 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)) Message-ID: <mailto:cad6ajgtyqt-omq_kxxfe-soz

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: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 6:36 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > 1)Thanks for the reference. However, Informative Reference 7 of our IETF > Draft cites another IANA document which puts the initial date of the 240/4 > topic back to 1981-09 which was much earlier, in fact, coincided with that 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))

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)) > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56

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))

924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Hi, Bill: 1)    Thanks for the reference. However, Informative Reference 7 of our IETF Draft cites another IANA document which puts the initial date of the 240/4 topic back to 1981-09 which was much earlier, in fact, coincided with that of RFC 791. 2)    My curiosity questions were not

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

William Herrin wrote: Ever since we started our study, we were quite puzzled by why the 240/4 netblock was regarded so special? Why no one could tell us what led to its current status, and even after IPv4 was set to transition to IPv6?

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 7:51 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > 1)" ... should be ... ":Instead of "hand wave", this is a > diplomatic expression to challenge the software engineers' knowledge of the > networking program code for the current case. Ever since we started our > study, we were

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

our books. Regards, Abe (2022-03-10 22:49 EST) -- NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 11 Message: 10 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:29:22 -0800 From: Seth Mattinen To:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID:<0c6c8b63-6e84-92da-2e28-89b2b5c6d...@rollernet.us>

RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Wish I was. Will be at MTA in MSP, but will be at WISPAPALOOZA. Love to have a group meet then. -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Travis Garrison Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:12 PM To: Dave Taht Cc: NANOG Subject: RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) I

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, 11:22 Masataka Ohta, wrote: > Saku Ytti wrote: > > > 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 the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes. > > Indeed,

Re: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

f Dave Taht > Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:25 PM > To: Tim Howe > Cc: NANOG > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) > > I am going to attend the WISPA conference in New Orleans next week. > (anyone going) > -- Jeremy Austin jhaus...@gmail.com

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: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

Saku Ytti wrote: 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 the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes. Indeed, we don't need IPv6 at all at least for the next 20 years, which is

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: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

John Gilmore wrote: Whatever the IPv6 transition might require, it isn't comparable to the small effort needed to upgrade a few laggard OS's to support 240/4 and to do some de-bogonization in the global Internet, akin to what CloudFlare did for 1.1.1.1. It may be a good idea to offer 127/8

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

2)    I am glad that you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while waiting for IPv6 to deliver its promises. 3)    As to your question about where does IPv6 stand today and where is it heading, I like to highlight a r

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

It appears that David Conrad said: >isn’t very far), 240/4 isn’t sourcing or sinking significant traffic on the >Internet. FWIW, my tiny server sees about 20 packets/day from that range. It's not very much but it's hard to imagine why I'm seeing any at all. It's more than I see from 0/8,

RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

anagement: https://cloud.linktechs.net -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Travis Garrison Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 2:12 PM To: Dave Taht Cc: NANOG Subject: RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) I will be attending also. We should try to do a meetup of the NANO

RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I will be attending also. We should try to do a meetup of the NANOG members Thank you Travis Garrison -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Dave Taht Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:25 PM To: Tim Howe Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Um, are you suggesting there is sufficiently heavy use of 240/4 to result in a significant security/stability issue if the address space is allocated? I thought you were arguing too many systems would have to be updated to even send/receive packets with 240/4 in the source or destination

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

John, On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:48 AM, John Kristoff wrote: > Isn't this essentially the same thing as the DNS name collision problem > ICANN has been studying and discussing? Not really (IMHO). As mentioned to Mr. Levine, what ICANN is concerned about is really the security/stability

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

John, On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:45 AM, John Levine wrote: >> When did squatting become a justification for not allocating addresses? > Um, when can I register my .corp and .home domains? Um, are you suggesting there is sufficiently heavy use of 240/4 to result in a significant security/stability

Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I am going to attend the WISPA conference in New Orleans next week. (anyone going?). I don't see any topics related to ipv6 there, nor as requirements for broadband grants. I first tried to deploy ipv6 at my wisp 14 years ago, and failed utterly. Since then, I've kept track of that market, and

Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 09:46:41 -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 despite

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

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:31 AM Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 3/7/22 2:14 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > The cost of this software engineering should be minimal. > > So basically no solution is offered to what is the showstopper for this > proposal, only a hand wave that it "should be" easy to fix

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:38:20 -0800 David Conrad wrote: > When did squatting become a justification for not allocating > addresses? Isn't this essentially the same thing as the DNS name collision problem ICANN has been studying and discussing? Perhaps scale and potential for harm is different,

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

It appears that David Conrad said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:08 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote: >>> Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they >>> tried it and it works. >> Sounds like an excellent reason not to

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:08 AM, John R. Levine wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote: >> Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they >> tried it and it works. > Sounds like an excellent reason not to try to use it for global unicast. When did squatting

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On 3/7/22 2:14 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: The cost of this software engineering should be minimal. So basically no solution is offered to what is the showstopper for this proposal, only a hand wave that it "should be" easy to fix (but that's everyone else's problem). I mean, I believe this

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Mar 9, 2022 at 9:09 AM Abraham Y. Chen mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> wrote: Dear John: 1)Thanks for your comment on how eMail headers could be used. Dear Bill: 2)I am glad that you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while wait

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

at you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while waiting for IPv6 to deliver its promises. 3)As to your question about where does IPv6 stand today and where is it heading, I like to highlight a recent APNIC blog that you may have read. It also appeared on Cir

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote: Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they tried it and it works. Sounds like an excellent reason not to try to use it for global unicast. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for

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: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Thanks, > Bill Herrin > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:09 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > >> Dear John: >> >> 1)Thanks for your comment on how eMail headers could be used. >> >> Dear Bill: >> >> 2) I am glad that you agree that it should be a vi

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

202203081821.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Hi, Stephen: 1)    First, logistics: Since I have been waiting for the moderation of my first posting on NANOG, could I assume that you are sending me this personal eMail as a Moderator? 2)    Perhaps the material provided in my writing was not sufficient, you seem to be expressing concerns

  1   2   >