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
> > that we shouldn't
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 is
> going to
> I would be happy to fund or run a project that would announce small
> global routes in each of these ranges, and do some network probing, to
> actually measure how well they work on the real Internet.
To be clear, despite my skepticism, I think this would be an interesting
experiment to run.
John,
On Nov 18, 2021, at 12:54 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
> Is it even *doable*?
With enough thrust, pigs fly quite well, although the landing can be messy.
> What's the *risk*?
Some (not me) might argue it could (further) hamper IPv6 deployment by
diverting limited resources.
> What will it
Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> On Nov 18, 2021, at 5:15 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
>
> Keeping the price of IPv4 addresses reasonable means that dual-stack
> servers can continue to be deployed at reasonable cost, so that it
> doesn't matter whether clients have
Randy Bush wrote:
> as a measurement kinda person, i wonder if anyone has looked at how much
> progress has been made on getting hard coded dependencies on D, E, 127,
> ... out of the firmware in all networked devices.
The drafts each have an Implementation Status section that describes
what we
John,
On Nov 18, 2021, at 11:37 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
> At current rates, 300 to 400 million addresses would last more than a decade!
Doesn’t this presume the redeployed addresses would be allocated via a market
rather than via the RIRs?
If so, who would receive the money?
> There will be
That suggests an idea:
Repurpose these addresses and allow the RIRs to sell them in the IPv4
secondary markets with some earmark for the funds. Plus or minus
perhaps some worthy causes for "free" (not quite free but old school)
allocations.
If you can't agree on any worthwhile earmark you can
Fred Baker wrote:
> My observation has been that people don't want to extend the life of
> IPv4 per se; people want to keep using it for another very short time
> interval and then blame someone else for the fact that the 32 bit
> integers are a finite set.
It's an attractive strawman, but
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:
I find it a bit interesting to follow this thread...
There was a discussion in March where Douglas Fischer shared this
picture which shows that Amazon is already using 240/4 space internally.
https://pasteboard.co/JRHNVKw.png
And I heard it from other sources, too (not an AWS customer so wont
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
Nick Hilliard wrote:
John Gilmore wrote on 18/11/2021 19:37:
There will be no future free-for-all that burns through 300 million
IPv4 addresses in 4 months.
this is correct not necessarily because of the reasons you state, but
because all the RIRs have changed their ipv4 allocation
as a measurement kinda person, i wonder if anyone has looked at how much
progress has been made on getting hard coded dependencies on D, E, 127,
... out of the firmware in all networked devices.
randy
*VIDEO | NANOG 83 KEYNOTE*
*Bert Hubert Asks Who Controls the Internet? And Should They?*
*Keynote: *Who really controls the Internet? And should they?
*Speaker:* Bert Hubert
This talk is not for the faint of heart. Bert shares the more disconcerting
details of government control within each
*VIDEO | NANOG 83 KEYNOTE*
*Bert Hubert Asks Who Controls the Internet? And Should They?*
*Keynote: *Who really controls the Internet? And should they?
*Speaker:* Bert Hubert
This talk is not for the faint of heart. Bert shares the more disconcerting
details of government control within each
Steven Bakker wrote:
> The ask is to update every ip stack in the world (including validation,
> equipment retirement, reconfiguration, etc)...
This raises a great question.
Is it even *doable*? What's the *risk*? What will it *cost* to upgrade
every node on the Internet? And *how long*
John Gilmore wrote on 18/11/2021 19:37:
There will be no future free-for-all that burns through 300 million
IPv4 addresses in 4 months.
this is correct not necessarily because of the reasons you state, but
because all the RIRs have changed their ipv4 allocation policies to
policies which
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,
Steven Bakker wrote:
> > ... the gain is 4 weeks of
> > extra ip address space in terms of estimated consumption.
>
> The burn rate is the best argument I've seen against the idea so far.
I'm glad you think so, since it's easy to refute.
There will be no future free-for-all that burns through
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
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 11:31 PM, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote:
>
> Yet, in spite of claims of TX being an island, customers all over the country
> are now being forced to pay energy surcharges specifically tied to the Feb
> 2021 TX event. It was a line item on my last bill.
>
>
> On Wed,
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
On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 10:51 +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> The ask is to update every ip stack in the world (including
> validation,
> equipment retirement, reconfiguration, etc) and the gain is 4 weeks
> of
> extra ip address space in terms of estimated consumption.
(Not to mention the static
This is actually worse than our collective progress on replacing v4 to
date.
-jim
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:31 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> 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-unicast-127-00.html
>
>
On 17 Nov 2021, at 6:29 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> 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-unicast-127-00.html
Workgroup:
Internet Engineering Task Force
Internet-Draft:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
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-unicast-127-00.html
That's definitely a stupid idea.
As it requires to update all the end systems not to recognize 127/8
as loopback, releasing
John Levine wrote on 18/11/2021 03:03:
The amount of work to change every computer in the world running
TCP/IP and every IP application to treat 240/4 as unicast (or to treat
some of 127/8) is not significantly less than the work to get them to
support IPv6. So it would roughly double the work,
On 2021-11-18, at 00:29, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> This seems like a really bad idea
Right up there with the FUSSP.
https://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
Someone should write a page like that about the FUSIAS (final ultimate solution
to the IPv4 address shortage) proposals.
It’s being discussed on Hacker News.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29246420
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> 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-unicast-127-00.html
>
>
No, you are not alone. This just gets kinda pathetic.
It also shows how an IPv6 is a failure.
(No please, leave me alone all you 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:
45 matches
Mail list logo
