On 20/11/2021 19:59, Michael Thomas wrote:
> but starving the beast doesn't have a great track record. We are talking
> about 20% of the address space that's being wasted so it's not nothing.
Starving the beast is actively working to make IPv4 cost-prohibitive. I
only wish those whom Jay refers
> On Nov 24, 2021, at 5:08 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM David Conrad wrote:
>>> I like research but what would the RIRs study? The percentage of the
>>
>> Lots of people said similar things when 1.0.0.0/8 was allocated to APNIC
>> and they said similar things
Le Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 05:08:43PM -0800, William Herrin a écrit :
> I don't recall there being any equipment or software compatibility
> concerns with 1.0.0.0/8. If you do, feel free to refresh my memory.
Perhaps not the whole /8 but definitely some buggy implementations :
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM David Conrad wrote:
>> I like research but what would the RIRs study? The percentage of the
>
> Lots of people said similar things when 1.0.0.0/8 was allocated to APNIC
> and they said similar things when 1.1.1.0/24 was stood up as an
> experiment by Cloudflare and
Bill,
On Nov 23, 2021, at 11:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> 1. IAB or IESG requests the IANA team to delegate one of
>> the 240/4 /8s to the RIRs on demand for experimental
>> purposes for a fixed period of time (a year or two?).
>
> I like research but what would the RIRs study? The
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:02 PM David Conrad wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2021, at 10:33 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> > 1. Move it from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" (IETF action)
>
> Or…
>
> 1. IAB or IESG requests the IANA team to delegate one of
> the 240/4 /8s to the RIRs on demand for
On Nov 23, 2021, at 10:33 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 5:03 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
>> So what's the road to actually being able to use [240/4]?
>
> 1. Move it from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" (IETF action)
> 2. Wait 10 years
> 3. Now that nearly all equipment that
It appears that Francis Booth via NANOG said:
>So we know RFC 2606 defined reserved TLDs like .lan and .home so there
Um, this must be a different RFC 2606 than the one the rest of us have read.
It mentions neither .lan nor .home.
>In order to solve the chicken/egg problem of having to know
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 6:35 PM, Matthew Walster wrote:
>
> I genuinely believe we're reaching a stalling point for IPv6 service
> enabling, and it's time to focus energy on running IPv6 only clients -- and
> to do that, we need to make the IPv6 only experience for residential / soho
> be as
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 5:03 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
> So what's the road to actually being able to use [240/4]?
1. Move it from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" (IETF action)
2. Wait 10 years
3. Now that nearly all equipment that didn't treat it as
yet-to-be-allocated unicast has cycled out of
Greg
Thanks for posting the links. Our old draft seems to have largely had
its intended effect without ever having been issued as an RFC
(moohaha). Most implementations don't hardcode 240/4 into a bogon
filter. We had at the time left open what next steps should be.
So what's the road to
> On Nov 21, 2021, at 1:20 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Eliot Lear
> wrote:
>> In 2008, Vince Fuller, Dave Meyer, and I put together
>> draft-fuller-240space, and we presented it to the IETF. There were
>> definitely people who thought we should just try to
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 21:00 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Agreed. But I have every right to express my desires and displeasures with
>> widespread plans to encourage what I perceive as misuse and that’s exactly
>> what’s happening here.
>>
>> My right to attempt to
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 20:37 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:11 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Owen DeLong wrote:
I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in
excess of one address. I’m not necessary
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:47 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>
> (snips for brevity and reply relevancy)
>>
>> This is a common fallacy… The real concept here isn’t “universal
>> reachability”, but universal transparent addressing. Policy then decides
>> about
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:16 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> This is a common fallacy… The real concept here isn’t “universal
> reachability”, but universal transparent addressing. Policy then decides
> about reachability.
>
> Think stateful firewall without NAT.
>
> If you want to allow the
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
> In 2008, Vince Fuller, Dave Meyer, and I put together
> draft-fuller-240space, and we presented it to the IETF. There were
> definitely people who thought we should just try to get to v6, but what
> really stopped us was a point that Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021
at 10:47:10PM -0500 Quoting Joe Maimon (jmai...@jmaimon.com):
> layer in front of these classes of devices or that they will be
> deployed|developed with sufficient/equivalent security without that
nt: Saturday, November 20, 2021 3:52 PM
To: William Herrin<mailto:b...@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
On 11/20/21 12:37 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:
Bill,
On 20.11.21 21:37, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
Was it the politics of ipv6 that
this didn't get resolved in the 90's when it was a lot more tractable?
No, in the '90s we didn't have nearly the basis for looking ahead. We
might still
Max Harmony via NANOG wrote:
On 21 Nov 2021, at 00.00, Joe Maimon wrote:
There is a clear difference of opinion on this, that there stands a very good
chance that prompt implementation now may prove to provide significant benefit
in the future, should IPv6 continue to lag, which you
On 21 Nov 2021, at 00.00, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> There is a clear difference of opinion on this, that there stands a very good
> chance that prompt implementation now may prove to provide significant
> benefit in the future, should IPv6 continue to lag, which you cannot
> guarantee it wont.
Owen DeLong wrote:
Agreed. But I have every right to express my desires and displeasures with
widespread plans to encourage what I perceive as misuse and that’s exactly
what’s happening here.
My right to attempt to discourage it by opposing proposed standards is exactly
equal to your
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:11 , Joe Maimon wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in excess
of one address. I’m not necessary inherently opposed to designating one (which
would be all that is required for IPv6 to
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:11 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in
>> excess of one address. I’m not necessary inherently opposed to designating
>> one (which would be all that is required for IPv6 to
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
(snips for brevity and reply relevancy)
This is a common fallacy… The real concept here isn’t “universal
reachability”, but universal transparent addressing. Policy then
decides about reachability.
Think stateful firewall without NAT.
No, NAT is not a
20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, > <mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org>> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20,
>> 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta
>> (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp <mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.tite
gt;>
>>
>> Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
>> To: nanog mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>;
>> This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who
>> noticed?
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 13:15 , Matthew Walster wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 13:47, Måns Nilsson <mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org>> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20,
> 2021 at 11:16:59AM +
Owen DeLong wrote:
I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in excess
of one address. I’m not necessary inherently opposed to designating one (which
would be all that is required for IPv6 to have one, no software updates would
be necessary), but I’d need some
On Nov 20, 2021, at 3:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> In the early to mid 90's it was still a crap shoot of whether IP was going to
> win (though it was really the only game in town for non-lan) but by when I
> started at Cisco in 1998 it was the clear winner with broadband starting to
>
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 22:35, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 03:16 , Matthew Walster wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson,
> wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov
>> 20, 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoti
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 22:14, Måns Nilsson
wrote:
> Subject: Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast
> public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:51:24AM -0800 Quoting William Herrin (
> b...@herrin.us):
> All the heavy lifting in video production via IP
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 03:16 , Matthew Walster wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, <mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org>> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20,
> 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Ma
> On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe wrote:
>
>
>
> Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
> To: nanog mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>;
> This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/dr
Subject: Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:51:24AM -0800 Quoting William Herrin
(b...@herrin.us):
> Multicast is not the same as broadcast and yes, it's a thing. Mainly
> it's a thing confined to the local broadcast
Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021
at 09:15:24PM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org):
> > Why should we burden ourselves with this cumbersome and painful, useless
> > layer of abstraction that is "port forwarding&
> On Nov 19, 2021, at 10:50 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> LLA and ULA and whatever random prefix you may wish to use for loopback,
>>> whether in IPv6 or even IPv4 have none of these qualities.
>> And if we implement the proposal at hand, which as near as I can
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:01:35AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 11/20/21 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> []
>
> won out using unicast. Even if it has some niche uses, I seriously doubt
> that it needs 400M addresses. If you wanted to reclaim ipv4 addresses it
> seems that class D
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 13:47, Måns Nilsson
wrote:
> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20,
> 2021 at 11:16:59AM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org):
> > 3. IPv6 "port forwarding" isn't really an easy thing -- people are
On 11/20/21 12:37 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
Was it the politics of ipv6 that
this didn't get resolved in the 90's when it was a lot more tractable?
No, in the '90s we didn't have nearly the basis for looking ahead. We
might still have
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
> Was it the politics of ipv6 that
> this didn't get resolved in the 90's when it was a lot more tractable?
No, in the '90s we didn't have nearly the basis for looking ahead. We
might still have invented a new way to use IP addresses that
On 11/20/21 11:51 AM, William Herrin wrote:
If I had to guess, changing 224/4 is probably the biggest lift. The
other proposals mainly involve altering configuration, removing some
possibly hardcoded filters and in a few cases waiting for silicon to
age out of the system. Changing 224/4 means
On 11/20/21 11:41 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 11/20/21 11:01, Michael Thomas wrote:
There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for
broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons
of work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force and
It appears that Michael Thomas said:
>There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for
>broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days?
It's multicast and no, but it hardly matters.
It's the same problem, if you wanted to turn it into unicast space you'd need
a
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:02 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
> Even if it has some niche uses, I seriously doubt
> that it needs 400M addresses. If you wanted to reclaim ipv4 addresses it
> seems that class D and class E would be a much better target than loopback.
Hi Mike,
If you follow the links
On 11/20/21 11:01, Michael Thomas wrote:
There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for
broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons of
work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force and ignorance
won out using unicast. Even if it has
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 1:02 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 11/20/21 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> that it needs 400M addresses. If you wanted to reclaim ipv4 addresses it
> seems that class D and class E would be a much better target than loopback.
> Mike, not that I have any stake in this
On 11/20/21 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
[]
There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for
broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons of
work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force and ignorance
won out using unicast. Even if it
Once upon a time, Masataka Ohta said:
> It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason.
Except that is provably wrong. A significant number of people are using
IPv6 (and probably don't even know it, because it works without notice).
Almost everything you do on the US cell networks
Mans Nilsson wrote:
Supplying context you omit:
>>> No, it is the real reason that we still have v4 around.
>> Even more than 25 years after IPv6 became a proposed standard?
It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason.
> IPv6 is deployable. It is deployed.
If you mean ATM
Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021
at 09:04:38PM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp):
> It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason.
IPv6 is deployable. It is deployed. You are fundamentally in error.
During the nation-wide lockdown of 2020, around the world, I took up
live-streaming my DJ sets online, since I couldn't play live. For those
that haven't seen them, you're welcome to my Youtube channel to catch them:
https://yt.djmt.africa/watch
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I was
Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021
at 11:16:59AM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org):
> The "real" reason we have IPv4 around is that it works.
It works in our present context, good enough that the pain of moving
look
Mans Nilsson wrote:
We cope,
because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and ISP /
access provider networks that won't change.
Sounds like abstract nonsense.
No, it is the real reason that we still have v4 around.
Even more than 25 years after IPv6 became a proposed standard?
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, wrote:
> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20,
> 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (
> mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp):
>
> > > We cope,
> > > because a lot of technica
Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021
at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp):
> > We cope,
> > because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and ISP /
> > access provider networks
Mans Nilsson wrote:
With proper layering, network addresses including IP ones, certainly,
uniquely identify *hosts*.
However, with proper layering, *applications* only require uniqueness
of IP+Port, which is enough for the worldwide IPv4 network.
As a result, NAT won the battle against IPv6.
Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2021
at 09:04:59PM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp):
> Mans Nilsson wrote:
>
> > The essence of an IP address is that it is unique. The larger the network
> > area
Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2021
at 12:26:23PM -0800 Quoting John Gilmore (g...@toad.com):
> =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson wrote:
> > The only viable future is to convert [to IPv6]. This is not
> > group-think, it is simpl
=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson wrote:
> The only viable future is to convert [to IPv6]. This is not
> group-think, it is simple math.
OK. And in the long run, we are all dead. That is not group-think, it
is simple math. Yet that's not a good argument for deciding not to
improve our lives
Owen DeLong wrote:
LLA and ULA and whatever random prefix you may wish to use for loopback,
whether in IPv6 or even IPv4 have none of these qualities.
And if we implement the proposal at hand, which as near as I can tell you are
supporting, that changes.
Having trouble following your
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> Since, as you point out, use of the other addresses in 127.0.0.0/8 is not
> particularly widespread, having a prefix
> dedicated to that purpose globally vs. allowing each site that cares to
> choose their own doesn’t seem like the
For what it’s worth, it's also being discussed in a couple of subreddits.
Total # of comments is about 500, so far.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/qvuyor/new_rfc_to_redefine_loop_back_and_allow_127100_to/
So see, that was kinda my view, though I hadn't realized there was a kernel
hack advancing the football...
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "William Herrin"
> Cc: "jra" , "nanog"
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 202
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:35 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> I’m all for IPv6 having better implementations than IPv4 rather than mere
> feature parity.
Me too, just not in a dystopian Harrison Bergeron sort of way.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
> On Nov 19, 2021, at 07:39 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> And I think the basic contention is that the vast majority of 127/8 is not
>>> in use. Apples to oranges, indeed.
>> This contention is provably
> On Nov 19, 2021, at 07:23 , Dave Taht wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> Since, as you point out, use of the other addresses in 127.0.0.0/8 is not
>> particularly widespread, having a prefix
>> dedicated to that purpose globally vs. allowing each
>
> You are proposing a deal involving paper money you have on your person
> to your fellow passengers on the Titanic; that is the essence of your
> proposed bet hedging. Having studied the market for IPv4, it is a no-
> brainer to realise the driving force behind all these schemes. Delaying
>
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
I don’t see the difference between 6 and 7 usable addresses on all the /29s
in the world as actually making a significant impact on the usable lifespan of
IPv4.
Owen
This idea gets better each time I think about it. The changes and
support required would
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon wrote:
And I think the basic contention is that the vast majority of 127/8 is not in
use. Apples to oranges, indeed.
This contention is provably false for some definitions of “in use”.
Determining the extent of this would be
I don’t see the difference between 6 and 7 usable addresses on all the /29s
in the world as actually making a significant impact on the usable lifespan of
IPv4.
Owen
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:33 , Dave Taht wrote:
>
> I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) first
>
ou IPv6 zealots).
>
> I think its time to go back to design board and start
> working on IPv8 ;) so we finnaly get rid of IPv4...
>
> -- Original message --
>
> From: Jay R. Ashworth
> To: nanog
> Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
&g
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Andrews wrote:
It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up
drafts like this that are never going to
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:40 , Jerry Cloe wrote:
>
>
>
> Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
> To: nanog mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>;
> This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:03 , John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Joe Maimon said:
>> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up
>>> drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is
>> in use. It isn’t free.
>>
>>
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 16:32 , Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>> That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's
>> just
>> me. So many things are just me.
>
> Someone is wrong on the Internet.
> https://xkcd.com/386/
>
> Other
This will break a significant number of existing deployments where people
have come to depend on a feature in Linux where any address within 127.0.0.0/8
can be “listened” and operate as a valid loopback address without configuring
the addresses individually as unicast on the interface.
In fact,
Mans Nilsson wrote:
The essence of an IP address is that it is unique. The larger the network
area is that recognizes it as unique, the better it is.
With proper layering, network addresses including IP ones, certainly,
uniquely identify *hosts*.
However, with proper layering, *applications*
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:20 PM Måns Nilsson wrote:
> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Thu, Nov 18,
> 2021 at 01:46:04PM -0800 Quoting William Herrin (b...@herrin.us):
> > The detractors for this proposal and those like it make the core claim
> >
Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Thu, Nov 18, 2021
at 01:46:04PM -0800 Quoting William Herrin (b...@herrin.us):
>
> The detractors for this proposal and those like it make the core claim
> that we shouldn't take the long view improving IPv4 because IPv6 i
Time comes at you fast :-)
The POSIX committee has officially adopted 64-bit time_t as a requirement
in the working draft of IEEE Std. 1003.1-202x and ISO/IEC 9945.
One thing to cross off my list. And I was looking forward to all the time
machines crashing into the University of California
On November 18, 2021 at 11:15 c...@tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) wrote:
> On 2021-11-18, at 00:29, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >
> > This seems like a really bad idea
>
> Right up there with the FUSSP.
They do have one thing in common which is people will immediately
shoot down proposals
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:05 AM John R. Levine wrote:
..> The IETF is not the Network Police, and all IETF standards are entirely
> voluntary.
Yes, however the IETF standards can be an obstacle -- if they are, then
it is reasonable to adjust that which might impede a future useful development:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:40 PM Fred Baker wrote:
> I'm not sure what has changed in the past lotsa years other
> than which prefix people want to make essentially the same
> arguments about. My observation has been that people don't
> want to extend the life of IPv4 per se; people want to keep
Fred Baker wrote:
I have read through this thread, and you'll pardon me if it sounds like yet
another rehash on yet another list. You might take a look at
https://packetlife.net/blog/2010/oct/14/ipv4-exhaustion-what-about-class-e-addresses/,
which responds to
I have read through this thread, and you'll pardon me if it sounds like yet
another rehash on yet another list. You might take a look at
https://packetlife.net/blog/2010/oct/14/ipv4-exhaustion-what-about-class-e-addresses/,
which responds to
The proposals I've seen all seem to deliver minimal benefit for the massive
lift (technical, administrative, political, etc) involved to keep IPv4
alive a little longer.
Makes about as much sense as trying to destabilize US currency by
counterfeiting pennies.
Thank you
jms
On Thu, Nov 18,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:14 AM Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I don't think expanding 1918 was the goal of these
> proponents
Hi Jay,
I would be happy with the compromise where the addresses are assigned
to "unicast; reserved." We can fight over exactly what unicast use
- Original Message -
> From: "Justin Keller"
> I'd be fine if newish devices use it like a 1918 but I don't think
> it's worth the headache and difficulty of making it globally routed.
> Maybe Amazon could use it too
I could be wrong, but I don't think expanding 1918 was the goal of
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:53:53 -0800
Jonathan Kalbfeld via NANOG wrote:
> If we’re going to do something that Majorly Breaks the Internet(tm),
> why not talk about the 240/4 space instead?
I like the proposal that suggest include a plan to reuse 224/4 (with
the exception of 224.0.0.0/24, but it
On Nov 18, 2021, at 9:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop squatting on
>> 240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4 that could possibly
>> be better used elsewhere by others who may choose to do so.
>
> The IETF is not
Jonathan Kalbfeld via NANOG wrote:
How much runway would a single /8 give us?
Up to 65280 /24's becoming available through registrars would be quite
welcome to lots of small organizations or startups.
Is it worth the headache to gain a single /8 ?
I support serious consideration be
John R. Levine wrote:
The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop
squatting on 240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4
that could possibly be better used elsewhere by others who may choose
to do so.
The IETF is not the Network Police, and all IETF
The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop squatting on
240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4 that could possibly
be better used elsewhere by others who may choose to do so.
The IETF is not the Network Police, and all IETF standards are entirely
Dave Taht wrote:
I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) > first discussed here. > > Try this instead? > >
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-lowest-address/
> > >
in my mind, has the most promise for making the internet better in the
How much runway would a single /8 give us? Is it worth the headache to gain a
single /8 ?
If we’re going to do something that Majorly Breaks the Internet(tm), why not
talk about the 240/4 space instead?
We can’t fight address exhaustion on the supply side. The only way
to fix IPv4
Mark Andrews wrote:
CIDR is much older than that and we still have to avoid .0 and .255
addresses in class C space.
I use .0 all the time.
Similarly for .0.0 and .255.255 for class B space and .0.0.0 and
.255.255.255 for class A space. Getting everybody you want to contact
and the path
I'd be fine if newish devices use it like a 1918 but I don't think
it's worth the headache and difficulty of making it globally routed.
Maybe Amazon could use it too
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 6:31 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who
I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) first
discussed here.
Try this instead?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-lowest-address/
in my mind, has the most promise for making the internet better in the
nearer term.
Could I get y'all to put
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
