Re: DoD IP Space
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:20:47AM -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote: > You don't need to patronize me. I'm merely explaining the real life realities > of > working in a large enterprise. Patronize you? Ohh, heavens no! I fully intend to use your replies as educational material. Why, I've passed them to colleagues of mine already. It's not every day that an off-handed comment made in frustration at the state of the industry is so immediately and thoroughly expanded upon. I think patronizing would look more like: assuming a position of great authority and noteworthy insight on a list full of professionals by vaguely citing a situation which they were once exposed to as some kind of instructive lab of how the "real world" works -- perhaps going farther to summarizing each of the lessons into a one-line takeaway for those who were either unable or unwilling to understand their point. > And the key takeaway here is: we can come up with the most efficient > solutions, > in the end it's all about budgets and stakeholder requirements. Ahh, I see! Thanks. I'll put that with the rest of my notes. -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \/ |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
Re: DoD IP Space
- On Jan 22, 2021, at 10:28 PM, Valdis Klētnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: Hi, > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:07:42 -0800, Sabri Berisha said: >> Financial incentives also work. Perhaps we can convince Mr. Biden to give a >> .5% >> tax cut to corporations that fully implement v6. That will create some bonus >> targets. > > And how would you define "fully implement v6", anyhow? Fair point. I'm sure the a commission appointed by the appropriate legislators will be happy to spend a few millions debating that issue. Personally, I would argue that a full implementation of IPv6 means that v4 could be phased out without adverse effect on the production network. But of course, how would we define "adverse effect on the production network"? :) > Even more problematic: What do you do with a company that's fully v6-ready, > but > still has several major interconnects to other companies that *aren't* ready, > and thus still using v4? I totally agree with everything you wrote. It proves the point that having v6 ready technologies in "the network", does not mean a network, or even a company is fully v6 ready. Way too many stakeholders and outside dependencies. To me, it means that "we", as in network professionals, should be ready to save the day when company leaders finally realize they have no option and need v6 to be implemented fast. And secretly, I've been hoping for that moment. "Well, sir, the network has been IPv6 ready for years, but the software groups and their leadership have so far blatantly refused to update their code and support it". I guess that I'll join you in retirement before that moment comes. Thanks, Sabri
Re: DoD IP Space
- On Jan 22, 2021, at 4:50 PM, Izaac iz...@setec.org wrote: Hi, > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:43:43PM -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote: >> TL;DR: in theory, I agree with you 100%. In practice, that stuff just doesn't >> work. > > Well thanks for sharing. I think we've all learned a lot. You don't need to patronize me. I'm merely explaining the real life realities of working in a large enterprise. And the key takeaway here is: we can come up with the most efficient solutions, in the end it's all about budgets and stakeholder requirements. Thanks, Sabri
Comcast contact
Hello Networkers, Anyone from Comcast that works in datacenters or close to their dev team. Thanks to unicast me Brgds, LG
Re: Nice work Ron
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:11 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > When you sign a contract with a RIR (whatever RIR), is always 2 parties, > so majority of resources operated in the region (so to have the complete > context) clearly means that you are using in the region >50% of the > provided IPs. No. If you operate a global backbone on six continents, and obtain a block of addresses to use for building that backbone, you can easily end up in a situation where there is no continent with >50% utilization of resources; it can easily end up with the space being split 10%, 10%, 20%, 25%, 35%. Every time I have gone to an RIR for resources, and have described the need, explaining that the largest percentage of the addresses will be used within the primary region has been sufficient. No RIR has stated that a global backbone buildout can only be built in a region if > 50% of the addresses used on that backbone reside within their region. Otherwise, you end up at a stalemate with no RIR able to allocate addresses for your backbone in good faith, because no region holds more than 50% of the planet's regions. "Mainly" has been interpreted to be "the largest percentage" every time I have requested space. If RIRs start to put a >50% requirement in place, you're going to see global backbone providers put into the awkward position of having to lie about their buildout plans--so they're going to consistently vote against language that explicitly says ">50%" just so that nobody is put into the position of having to knowingly lie on an attestation. I understand where you're coming from; but as someone who has built global infrastructure in the past, I think it would be good to consider the view from the other side of the table, and realize why the language is kept a bit more loose, to allow for the creation of infrastructure that spans multiple regions. Thanks! Matt
Re: Nice work Ron
To summarize several responses: Every RIR decides which one is their official languages for the policies, contracts, etc.. In case of discrepancies, the one that is binding is the official one. In the case of LACNIC it is spanish, it is clearly indicated in the web site, and in the policy manual: "This document and/or information was originally written in Spanish, the official language of Uruguay, the country where LACNIC is legally incorporated and whose laws and regulations LACNIC must meet. Likewise, unofficial information and/or documents are also written in Spanish, as this is the language in which most of LACNIC's collaborators and officers work and communicate. We do our best to ensure that our translations are reliable and serve as a guide for our non-Spanish-speaking members. However, discrepancies may exist between the translations and the original document and/or information written in Spanish. In this case, the original text written in Spanish will always prevail." I've already informed LACNIC that "mainly", in my opinion, is a wrong translation for "mayoria", and should be majority, but in any case, the spanish version is the relevant one. If you decide to do business in a region or country where the language is not english, at a minimum you should be able to understand the official language (even official government, notary, contracts, etc., documents to establish the business will be in that language). If you don't have the skills yourself, I bet you will contract a consultant, lawyer, or whatever for that. El 23/1/21 4:23, "NANOG en nombre de Masataka Ohta" escribió: Mark Andrews wrote: > Majority only means >50% But actual word used by LACNIC is "mainly" as Jordi wrote: : *“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%. : (https://www.lacnic.net/681/2/lacnic/) : The 50% was not there before, so I submitted a "recent" : policy proposal that reached consensus, and that is "recent" change. Moreover, corresponding word in Spanish page is "mayoritariamente", English translation of which is "mostly", "mainly", "chiefly" or "by majority" according to: https://www.spanishdict.com/dictionary Masataka Ohta ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Re: Nice work Ron
When you sign a contract with a RIR (whatever RIR), is always 2 parties, so majority of resources operated in the region (so to have the complete context) clearly means that you are using in the region >50% of the provided IPs. El 23/1/21 3:06, "Mark Andrews" escribió: Majority only means >50% when there are 2 parties. When there is more than 2 parties the majority can be less than 50%. When there is more than 2 parties, one uses the term “absolute majority” to indicate >50%. There are more than 2 RIRs. If 40% of address are used in LACNIC, 30% in APNIC and 30% in RIPE then the majority of addresses by region are in the LACNIC region. -- Mark Andrews > On 22 Jan 2021, at 23:48, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: > > > > El 22/1/21 13:25, "NANOG en nombre de Masataka Ohta" escribió: > >JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: > >> My proposal added the clarification that "majority" is understood as "over 50%". > >And the proposal is denied to be unreasonable by Toma and, more >aggressively, by me. > >So? > > [Jordi] The proposal, on this specific point, only made a "clarification", didn't mean an actual policy change. The existing policy already had "majority", so unless you believe that majority means something different than more than 50% (in the context of the full text), the change was "neutral". If anyone disagree with a policy in any region, MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT: "bring the problem to the policy list, discuss it with the community, and if needed make a policy proposal". In Spain we say "barking dogs seldom bite" and in this context means "if you complain, but don't act, then you have nothing to do". > >> The staff was already interpreting the policy like that, because >> usually when you say majority, you mean more than half. Do you >> agree on that? > >How can you ask such a question. already opposed by Toma and, >more aggressively, by me, to me? > > [Jordi] I think if we don't agree what means majority, then it is difficult to get us understanding among ourselves, so that's why I'm asking if you agree that in English, majority means more than half. In Spanish it means that. > >My point is that locality requirement, whether it is 50% or 40%, is >impractical and, with operational practices today, is not and can >not be enforced. > > [Jordi] Then you need to come to the right mailing list and discuss that with the community. It is not me who decides that! > >>> The community decided that my proposal to add the explicit "footnote" > >Then, the "footnote" might be applicable to *SOME* part of "the >community" but definitely not beyond it. > > [Jordi] A footnote in the policy manual is a clarification to the manual text, and of course *applies* to anyone who signs a contract with the RIR to obtain resources. > >Masataka Ohta > > > > ** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
