On 2/17/24 10:19 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
Mike, it’s true that Google used to be a lot less strict on IPv4 email
than IPv6, but they want SPF and /or DKIM on everything now, so it’s
mostly the same. There is less reputation data available for IPv6 and
server reputation is a harder
t; -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> From: "Stephen Satchell"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:25:03 PM
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
It appears that Mike Hammett said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>" Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?"
>
>
>I think people will conflate doing so at ISP-scale and doing so at residential
>hobbiyst scale (and everything in between). One would
>expect differences in outcomes of
itter.com/ipv4g/>
From: NANOG On Behalf
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 10:28 AM
To: Tom Beecher
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links
and attachments.
Evidence to suppo
ging Policy
Comcast
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 10:20 AM
To: l...@satchell.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
"Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?"
I think people will conflate doing so at ISP-scal
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 5:31:42 PM
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote:
On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7
From: Christian de Larrinaga
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:51 PM
> To: Christopher Hawker
> Cc: Denis Fondras ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> excuse top posting -
>
> I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it i
Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Satchell"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:25:03 PM
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom
er"
Cc: "North American Operators' Group"
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:23:35 AM
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented your
case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it and yet
y
Depends what size block is being traded. Prices for /16 and larger have been flat since 2021.One thing is for sure: the cost for any size block has not dropped back to 2013 levels.Consider also that providers are starting to pass the charges onto their customers, like $DAYJOB-1 (an NSP) and now
$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG
wrote:
> On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> > I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
> >
> > The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
> >
On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
within a month.
As
For everyone’s amusement:
[root@owen log]# grep 'IPv6' maillog | wc -l
2648
[root@owen log]# grep 'IPv4' maillog | wc -l
0
Now admittedly, this isn’t really a fair report because sendmail doesn’t tag
IPv4 address as “IPv4” like it does IPv6 addresses.
e.g.: Feb 15 19:22:59 owen
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:10 AM Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)
wrote:
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
>
> The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
> Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
>
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
within a month.
--lyndon
> > How many legacy mail clients can handle IPv6?
I would suspect all of them, since MUAs, by definition, are not
involved in any mail transport operations. But if you're thinking
of MUAs that use Submission, they are unlikely to care one whit
what the underlying transport is. You configure a
ce adoption through
> prevention of access to IPv4.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> --
> *From:* Owen DeLong
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:23 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker
> *Cc:* Tom Beecher ; North American Operators' Group <
> On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:29, Christopher Hawker wrote:
>
>
> Owen,
>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to how
> you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous times"
> and that we "continue to persist".
>
It may be your first
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 18:25, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
>> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
>> is solving the problem right now.
ter rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity
> completely.
>
> Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> From: NANOG on behalf of John
> Levine
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:08 AM Christopher Hawker wrote:
> The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge
> onto the internet, without potentially having to fork
> out substantial amounts of money.
Hi Chris,
I think that would be the worst possible use for 240/4. The last thing
new
Once upon a time, Christopher Hawker said:
> The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet,
> without potentially having to fork out substantial amounts of money.
There is a substatial amount of money involved in trying to make 240/4
usable on the Internet. Network
n of access
to IPv4.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:23 AM
To: Christopher Hawker
Cc: Tom Beecher ; North American Operators' Group
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
This gift from the bad idea fairy just kee
I attempted with as much nuance and humor as I could muster, to
explain and summarize the ipv4 exhaustion problem, and CGNAT, the
240/4 controversy as well as the need to continue making the IPv6
transition, on this podcast yesterday.
, February 14, 2024 11:51 PM
To: Christopher Hawker
Cc: Denis Fondras ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
excuse top posting -
I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it is just
going to sustain the rentier sinecures of the existing IPv4
incumbencies. In other words
at
> least a few decades.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> -
> From: NANOG on behalf of Denis
> Fondras via NANOG
>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:2
> On 15 Feb 2024, at 13:25, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
>> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
>> is solving the problem right now.
On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
is solving the problem right now. Another solution isn’t needed.
Really? How many mail servers are up
ohn Levine
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM
> *To:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> It appears that William Herrin said:
> >On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG
> wrote:
> >> Think how many more site
… The only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to
either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity completely.
This is a false dichotomy: those aren’t the only two options, nor the best two
options.
The best option is what is happening right
herwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
From: NANOG on behalf of John
Levine
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
It appears that William Herrin sai
It appears that William Herrin said:
>On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted
>> effort had been put into that, instead.
>
>"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;
Well,
Christopher,
On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:49 AM, Christopher Hawker wrote:
> I agree with the fact that introducing this space has the very real risk of
> it being obtained by the highest bidder. Perhaps I may be naive in believing
> that we have a possible chance to delegate this space wisely and
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted
> effort had been put into that, instead.
"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is
people's tendency to intuitively judge that a
On 2/14/24 9:30 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
That experiment already failed with the original v6 adoption process.
It’s been more than 20 years and all we have proven is that as long as
people can have an excuse to avoid v6 deployment, they will continue to
do so.
Giving them another 20
>
> 1. RIRs, following
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv4-rirs-2012-02-25-en,
> would request new /8s, and receive those allocations.
I don’t think this applies any more. I could be wrong, but I think based on
current practice, IANA would simply distribute 3 of the 16 /8s
024 7:42 AM
> To: North American Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs out?
via sanog ; apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
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
: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 4:49 AM
To: David Conrad
Cc: North American Operators' Group
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when
clicking links or opening attachments.
Hi David,
I agree with the fact that introducing
a commodity,
and it's a shame that it is being treated as such with a price tag put on it.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
From: David Conrad
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:03 PM
To: Christopher Hawker
Cc: North American Operators' Group
Subject: Re: The Reg does
From: NANOG on behalf of Denis
Fondras via NANOG
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:21PM -0800, David Conrad a écrit :
> This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s tempor
Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:21PM -0800, David Conrad a écrit :
> This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s temporary
> since the underlying problem (limited resource, unlimited demand) cannot be
> addressed.
>
I agree with this.
Yet I am in favor of changing the
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
sday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker
> *Cc:* North American Operators' Group ;
> aus...@lists.ausnog.net ; Christopher Hawker via
> sanog ; apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
>
> Now
From: William Herrin
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 10:06 AM
To: Christopher Hawker
Cc: North American Operators' Group
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:34 PM Christopher Hawker wrote:
> Having [240/4] reclassified as unicast space is indeed much easier.
, February 14, 2024 10:24 AM
To: Christopher Hawker
Cc: North American Operators' Group
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
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
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
rom: NANOG on behalf of John
Levine
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:26 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
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
wider v6
adoption and deployment.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
From: NANOG on behalf of Lyndon
Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 7:42 AM
To: North American Operators' Group
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
And what are they going to do
Cc: North American Operators' Group
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
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
s.apnic.net
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
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 Christoph
>
> 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?
.
-richey
From: NANOG on behalf of
Bryan Holloway
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 11:05 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
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 Behalf Of Tim Howe
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 6:05 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
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
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.
>
>
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
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
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
>
> 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
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
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:18 AM Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Dave Taht"
>
> > The angst around ipv6 on hackernews that this triggered was pretty
> > revealing and worth thinking about independently.
> > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39316266
>
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Dave Taht"
> The angst around ipv6 on hackernews that this triggered was pretty
> revealing and worth thinking about independently.
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39316266
Thanks; the source where I got the other link mentioned that, and I meant
to
The angst around ipv6 on hackernews that this triggered was pretty
revealing and worth thinking about independently.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39316266
In the tik world, people are struggling to deploy ipv6 as even linux
kernel 5.7 in routerOS 7.XX still has some needed missing
Hey there Jay,
It's certainly going to make for a good discussion at APRICOT in a few weeks :-)
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
From: NANOG on behalf of Jay R.
Ashworth
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM
To: North American Operators' Group
Subject: The Reg
75 matches
Mail list logo
