Dear BZS:
1) " ... it was more likely due to the success of CGNAT.": Looking
forward from this milestone marker, what would you envision as the
possible additions to CG-NAT's characteristics and capabilities for the
potential expansion of its services and enhancement to its performances?
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Hi,
Solutions must first avoid broadcast as much as possible, because
there's also the cost of it.
Though I'm not saying all the broadcast must be repeated,
if you think moderate broadcast is costly, just say,
CATENET.
I remember old days when entire network
rd side, it is adoption. People will not move
if it does not hurt enough. And they can bear a lot.
All the best
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta
> Sent: vendredi 13 janvier 2023 6:36
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: A straightf
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Hi,
For that issue at least there was some effort. Though ATM and FR
appear to be long gone, the problem got even worse with pseudo wires
/ overlays and wireless.
It was tackled in the IoT community 10+ years ago and we ended up
with RFC 8505 and 8928. This is
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:16 PM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
wrote:
> The comment looks outdated: Who cares now about ATM?
You may have missed the sarcasm. The 1995 Addison Wesley IPng book
spends pages and pages talking about potential IPv6 use in the Navy
and interoperability with ATM before it
Of Masataka Ohta
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 7:32 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)
Randy Bush wrote:
> three of the promises of ipng which ipv6 did not deliver
>o compatibility/transition,
>o security, a
Hello Masataka-san
For that issue at least there was some effort.
Though ATM and FR appear to be long gone, the problem got even worse with
pseudo wires / overlays and wireless.
It was tackled in the IoT community 10+ years ago and we ended up with RFC 8505
and 8928. This is implemented in
Randy Bush wrote:
three of the promises of ipng which ipv6 did not deliver
o compatibility/transition,
o security, and
o routing & renumbering
You miss a promise of
o ND over ATM/NBMA
which caused IPv6 lack a notion of link broadcast.
On January 12, 2023 at 02:11 n...@neo.co.tz (Noah) wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> So, It was assumed that IPv4 depletion would effectively lead to the adoption
> of IPv6. This has not been the case in the last decade save for a very few
> countries in the world.
>
> It was also assumed that IPv6
Randy -
Full agreement - nicely said.
/John
P.s disclaimer: my views alone - do not eat packet.
> On Jan 11, 2023, at 7:10 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It was assumed that IPng would include a standard straightforward
>> technological solution to support communication with IPv4 hosts –
> It was assumed that IPng would include a standard straightforward
> technological solution to support communication with IPv4 hosts – this
> was a defined hard requirement.
>
> This transition mechanism wasn’t available at the time of the
> selection of IPng, and instead was left as a future
Noah -
It was assumed that IPng would include a standard straightforward technological
solution to support communication with IPv4 hosts – this was a defined hard
requirement.
This transition mechanism wasn’t available at the time of the selection of
IPng, and instead was left as a future
Hi John,
So, It was assumed that IPv4 depletion would effectively lead to the
adoption of IPv6. This has not been the case in the last decade save for a
very few countries in the world.
It was also assumed that IPv6 only networks would crop all over the place
as a result, providing the same
Dear John:
0) The below message just popped up in my InBox. And, it appears that
there has not been any follow-up comments.
1) How about have a look at our work, (URL below), in case you have not
come across? We propose a very specific way of making use of the 240/4
netblock. There are a
now changed. The routers inside a realm can keep operating unmodified, and
there's no need to deploy new policies for ingress filtering.
Keep safe;
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: vendredi 15 avril 2022 0:47
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc:nanog@nanog.org
Subjec
sion of the draft impacted routers for BCP 38 procedures, this is
now changed. The routers inside a realm can keep operating unmodified, and
there's no need to deploy new policies for ingress filtering.
Keep safe;
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: vendredi 15 avril 2022
to deploy new policies for ingress filtering.
Keep safe;
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: Abraham Y. Chen
> Sent: vendredi 15 avril 2022 0:47
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Ready to compromise? was RE: V6 still not supported
>
Dear Pascal:
1) I had a quick look at the below updated draft. I presume Figure 2
is intended to address my request. Since each IPv4 address has 4 bytes,
what are the 12 bytes allocated for IPv4 header fields (outer) and
(inner), each? Aren't they the standard first 12 bytes of packet
Dear all
Following advice from thus list, I updated the YADA I-Draft (latest is
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt-03.html, more to
come soon if feedback is heard) and proposed it to the v6ops WG at the IETF.
For memory, the main goal here is to find a compromise as
There is also Customer contacts ACCC in Australia and complains that Sony is
not supplying a working product and Sony gets fined and instructed to change
their rules about customers behind CGNATs.
> On 7 Apr 2022, at 03:24, Jared Brown wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>> I would
Hi, Bill:
0) Thanks for bringing up the NANOG posting guideline. We now have
something tangible to discuss.
1) Section 6. looks most relevant. So, I copy and paste it below for
our discussion:
A. 6.1.1. "... > relevant excerpt 1 response to excerpt 1 ...
": This seems
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> I would expect the trend to become that ISP's refuse to accommodate 3rd
>> party vendors shenanigans to the point where it hampers their operations or
>> to the point where it cost them more to do so.
>
> $ISP_1 refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans…
>
Hi, Ant:
1) As I Cc:'ed you, I attempted to contact the author of the IPv4+
draft a few days ago to offer my reading of his work. I have not heard
any response. In short, I believe that IPv4+ is paraphrasing the scheme
of the unsuccessful RFC1385 that EzIP Draft cited as Informative
There are other problematic examples out there for CGN as well…
For example, Philips Hue assumes that if you are presenting the same public IP
to the internet, you must be in the same household.
Yes, this means that an opportunistic neighbor behind the same CGNAT address as
you can gain
> On Apr 4, 2022, at 05:06 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
>> No, isn't only a Sony problem, becomes a problem for every ISP that has
>> customers using Sony PSN and have CGN (NAT444), their IP blocks are
>> black-listed when they are detected as used
Worse yet, this ship sailed anyway even farther with a ton of devices using
private/dynamic MAC addresses ...
FWIW, large-ish ISP here, originally an ipv4-only shop. A few years back we
overhauled everything and naively tried to go all ipv6, since we owned the
data/voice terminals and set top
Jared Brown wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
If I'm a gamer, and one of my possible ISPs is using CGN, and from time to time
stops working, and another ISP is providing me a public and/or static IPv4
address, always working, and there is not too much price difference, what I
Francis Booth wrote:
> I think you’re jumping to conclusions that Sony is doing this purely from the
> darkness in their hearts.
I confess to being momentously surprised if this wasn't the driving reason :)
> The same thing could be said about Netflix and Hulu blocking traffic from
>
to help people have
that choice.
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: Dave Bell
Sent: mardi 5 avril 2022 13:03
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: Dave Bell ; Matthew Petach ;
Vasilenko Eduard ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hi Pascal
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> If I'm a gamer, and one of my possible ISPs is using CGN, and from time to
> time stops working, and another ISP is providing me a public and/or static
> IPv4 address, always working, and there is not too much price difference,
> what I will do?
Changing
ep safe;
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Dave Bell
> *Sent:* mardi 5 avril 2022 9:45
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> *Cc:* Matthew Petach ; Vasilenko Eduard <
> vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com>; NANOG
> *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re:
, automatically. That’s a bonus
that could become handy.
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: Dave Bell
Sent: mardi 5 avril 2022 9:45
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: Matthew Petach ; Vasilenko Eduard
; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
*From:* Matthew Petach
> *Sent:* mardi 5 avril 2022 0:29
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard
> *Cc:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Nicholas Warren <
> nwar...@barryelectric.com>; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
> Streiner ; NANOG
> *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not s
below, if there’s any article / doc?
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: Matthew Petach
Sent: mardi 5 avril 2022 0:29
To: Vasilenko Eduard
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Nicholas Warren
; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
Streiner ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:41 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
wrote:
> 240.0.01.1 address is appointed not to the router. It is appointed to
> Realm.
> It is up to the realm owner (ISP to Enterprise) what particular router (or
> routers) would do translation between realms.
>
Please forgive me as
...@geordish.org]
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:21 PM
To: Nicholas Warren
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard ; Abraham Y. Chen
; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Justin
Streiner ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
This seems pretty unworkable.
We would
hub...@cisco.com>>; Justin
Streiner mailto:strein...@gmail.com>>
Cc: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
2)When you extend each floor to use the whole IPv4 address pool, however,
you
4, 2022 9:21 PM
To: Nicholas Warren
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard ; Abraham Y. Chen
; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Justin
Streiner ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
This seems pretty unworkable.
We would now all need to maintain large CG
>
> From: NANOG On Behalf
> Of Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:28 AM
> To: Abraham Y. Chen ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> pthub...@cisco.com>; Justin Streiner
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hello Eduard
In the YADA draft 240.0.0.1 is effectively programmed on the shaft router loop
ack and used as router ID on the IGP inside the shaft…
240 addresses are the only ones advertised by the IGP
On 4/4/22 8:00 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
( Of course, the better solution is really on the service end to have
a better system to associate bad activity to specific users, or other
methods that aren't reliant on reputation services , but that won't
happen unless they start seeing revenue
> To: Nicholas Warren ; Vasilenko Eduard
>> ; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
>> Streiner
>> Cc: NANOG
>> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
>> 202203261833.AYC
>>
>> Hello Nicholas
>>
>&
t works
>
> You were mostly there. Just that routing inside the shaft is probably a
> single IGP with no prefix attached, just links and router IDs.
>
>>
>> Shaft and realm are fun words. I see why they picked them.
>>
>
> Cool
>
> Keep safe;
>
: Monday, April 4, 2022 7:20 PM
To: Nicholas Warren ; Vasilenko Eduard
; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hello Nicholas
Sorry for the distraction with the names; I did not forge realm, found
Eduard ; Nicholas Warren
; Abraham Y. Chen ; Justin
Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hello Eduard
As (badly) written, all ASes and IP addresses that exist today in the internet
could be either reused or moved
;
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: Vasilenko Eduard
> Sent: lundi 4 avril 2022 16:52
> To: Nicholas Warren ; Abraham Y. Chen
> ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ;
> Justin Streiner
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supporte
ol
Keep safe;
Pascal
> - Nich
>
> From: NANOG On Behalf
> Of Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:28 AM
> To: Abraham Y. Chen ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> ; Justin Streiner
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still no
w-level engineers (“for dummies”).
Eduard
*From:*NANOG
[mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] *On
Behalf Of *Abraham Y. Chen
*Sent:* Sunday, April 3, 2022 6:14 AM
*To:* Matthew Petach ; Masataka Ohta
*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not suppo
>
> . Less so a problem inherent to IPv4. A root cause fix would address
> Sony's hostile behavior.
>
Disagree, to a point.
The problem isn't technically with IPv4 itself, but with the lack of
availability of V4 addresses. This tends to force things like CGNAT, which
then compounds the problem
al Message-
From: Nicholas Warren [mailto:nwar...@barryelectric.com]
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 5:33 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard ; Abraham Y. Chen
; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Justin
Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203
On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 04:24:49PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> Related to the LEA agencies and CGN:
>
>
ft and realm are fun words. I see why they picked them.
- Nich
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:28 AM
To: Abraham Y. Chen ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
; Justin Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not support
Related to the LEA agencies and CGN:
https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/are-you-sharing-same-ip-address-criminal-law-enforcement-call-for-end-of-carrier-grade-nat-cgn-to-increase-accountability-online
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 4/4/22, 16:12, "NANOG en nombre de
I think you’re jumping to conclusions that Sony is doing this purely from the
darkness in their hearts. The same thing could be said about Netflix and Hulu
blocking traffic from addresses that appear as proxies/VPNs. Like it or not we
had many years where the primary expectation of the Internet
Hi, Jared:
1) " For cloud providers your IPv4 blocks become your moat. ": It
is interesting that your closing statement summarizing the current
tactics of keeping customers captive and fending against competition
mirrors well with the "Towers of Babel" metaphor of the ancient days
I don't think this can happen if I'm right and the reason they need to block
"shared" IPs is because the games/apps just don't work.
If I'm a gamer, and one of my possible ISPs is using CGN, and from time to time
stops working, and another ISP is providing me a public and/or static IPv4
My guess is that fixing that means fixing tons of games/apps. They are somehow
presuming that every user of the game has a different IP.
Note that we are talking only about PSN because it is probably the most
affected one, but I heard about other services with similar problems and
similar
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
No, isn't only a Sony problem, becomes a problem for every ISP that has customers using
Sony PSN and have CGN (NAT444), their IP blocks are black-listed when they are detected
as used CGN. This blocking is "forever" (I'm not aware of anyone that has
My apologies for expressing myself poorly.
What I meant to say is that this is primarily a problem caused by Sony and the
Sonys of the world. Less so a problem inherent to IPv4. A root cause fix would
address Sony's hostile behavior.
- Jared
Jordi Palet wrote:
No, isn't only a Sony
Of Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 6:14 AM
To: Matthew Petach ; Masataka Ohta
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported
Hi, Matt:
1)The challenge that you described can be resolved as one part of the
benefits from the EzIP proposal that I introduced
No, isn't only a Sony problem, becomes a problem for every ISP that has
customers using Sony PSN and have CGN (NAT444), their IP blocks are
black-listed when they are detected as used CGN. This blocking is "forever"
(I'm not aware of anyone that has been able to convince PSN to unblock them).
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
> >>>
> >>> Out of interest, how would this come about?
> >>
> >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services.
> > Could you please be more specific about which
nderstands, No need for a new name “Shaft”.
Ed/
From: Abraham Y. Chen [mailto:ayc...@avinta.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2022 12:45 AM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Vasilenko Eduard
; Justin Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203
Matthew Petach wrote:
Hi Masataka,
Hi,
One quick question. If every host is granted a range of public port
numbers on the static stateful NAT device, what happens when
two customers need access to the same port number?
I mean static outgoing port number, but your concern
should be well
Hi, Matt:
1) The challenge that you described can be resolved as one part of
the benefits from the EzIP proposal that I introduced to this mailing
list about one month ago. That discussion has gyrated into this thread
more concerned about IPv6 related topics, instead. If you missed that
Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> On Apr 2, 2022, at 5:57 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> 1)" ... darknet ... ":I am not aware of this terminology.
> Nonetheless, I believe that bringing in a not commonly known word into a
> discussion like this is
Hi, Christian:
1) I am a person who normally does not do hearsay. This was why I put
the unverified "street legend" about ancient Lord in parentheses to just
hint the possible extreme. Without it, the flow of my short story really
does not change. Since you spotted on it, I went back to
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 6:37 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> If you make the stateful NATs static, that is, each
> private address has a statically configured range of
> public port numbers, it is extremely easy because no
> logging is necessary for police grade
enko Eduard
; Justin Streiner
*Cc:* NANOG
*Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hi, Pascal:
1) " ... for the next version. ... ": I am not sure that I can
wait for so long, because I am asking for the basics. The
Your take on English history is a delightful fantasy but it is
just that a delightful fantasy. Norman barons were not typically
concerned with the health of their anglo saxon/british serfs / yoemen
other than providing the required tithes.
But taking you at what seems to be your intention.
Hi, Ant:
1) " ... darknet ... ": I am not aware of this terminology.
Nonetheless, I believe that bringing in a not commonly known word into a
discussion like this is just distraction tactic.
2) " ... progress ... ": EzIP proposes a parallel cyberspace to
the current Internet
: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hi, Pascal:
1)" ... for the next version. ...":I am not sure that I can wait
for so long, because I am asking for the basics. The reason that I asked for an
IP packet head
On 1 Apr 2022, at 11:17, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> 4) EzIP proposes an overlay cyberspace with geographic flavor to restore
> the society infrastructure back to Pt. 2) above, while providing the daily
> services of Pt. 3). It essentially offers a parallel Internet for the
> peasants who
On 3/31/22 9:26 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
On Mar 31, 2022, at 20:51, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative domains.
So, if an IPv6 prefix is assigned to an apartment building and
the building has no
Owen DeLong via NANOG writes:
> Just because there is a small code snippet you found that prevents casting
> 240/4 as unicast on an interface doesn’t mean that removing that code will
> magically make 240/4 usable in the entire stack.
>
> [...]
>
> The code you found may just be a safety
at’s what I mean by baby steps
for those who want to.
Keep safe;
Pascal
*From:* Abraham Y. Chen
*Sent:* vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard ; Pascal Thubert
(pthubert) ; Justin Streiner
*Cc:* NANOG
*Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 20220326
Hi, Christian:
0) Allow me following your "towers of babel world" metaphor to tell a
short story.
1) In the ancient days, peasants labored under the shadow of the
Tower, following the rules of and paid tax to the Lord living in the
Tower. In return, they expected protection from the
On Mar 31, 2022, at 11:51 PM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative
>> domains.
>
> So, if an IPv6 prefix is assigned to an apartment building and
> the building has no logging mechanism on how addresses are
for those
who want to.
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 15:49
To: Vasilenko Eduard ; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
; Justin Streiner
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Hi, Pascal:
What I would
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard ; Justin Streiner
; Abraham Y. Chen
*Subject:* RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not
supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hello Eduard:
Did you just demonstrate that POPs cannot exist? Or that there cannot
be a Default Free Zone?
I agree with your real world issue
Hi, Owen:
The EzIP addresses (the 240/4 netblock) are proposed to be treated as
"natural resources" without a price tag (or, "free") following the
old-fashioned PSTN discipline, instead of "personal properties" for
auction according to the current Internet way.
Regards,
Abe (2022-04-01
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG wrote:
- Stateful NATs the size of the Internet not doable,
Stateful NATs are necessary only near leaf edges of ISPs
for hundreds of customers or, may be, a little more
than that and is doable.
If you make the stateful NATs static, that is, each
private
Homburg ; nanog@nanog.org
; 'jordi.palet' (jordi.pa...@consulintel.es)
Subject: RE: V6 still not supported
Actually, Owen, now the day has come, I can say I love it.
No one likes tradeoffs. No one wants to compromise.
Ryland just told us we have a near perfect title for a spec
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; Philip Homburg
; nanog@nanog.org; 'jordi.palet'
(jordi.pa...@consulintel.es)
Subject: Re: V6 still not supported
I think this message is 4 days early.
Owen
On Mar 28, 2022, at 11:03 , Ryland Kremeier
mailto:rkreme...@barryelectric.com>> wrote:
[cid:im
thread, and the yada-yatt draft.
Keep safe;
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Joe
> Maimon
> Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 5:46
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
> 20220326
On Behalf Of Justin
Streiner
Sent: dimanche 27 mars 2022 18:12
To: Abraham Y. Chen
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
202203261833.AYC
Abe:
To your first point about denying that anyone is being stopped from working on
IPv4, I'm referring to users
pthubert)
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported
>
> > Are you ready for that, or should we wait another 80 years with dual stack
> and gigantic stateful NATs?
>
> That's what this network is going to do:
> https://www.aa.net.uk/etc/news/ipv6-end-o
> Are you ready for that, or should we wait another 80 years with dual stack
> and gigantic stateful NATs?
That's what this network is going to do:
https://www.aa.net.uk/etc/news/ipv6-end-of-trial/
There is something odd about the day this was published, though.
Rubens
A very long thread.
Face it: everyone is right, and even technically correct. There's no good and
evil. We'd know, after 20 years.
I live in France and my country has a famous 100-years war in its long history
with England. Do we want to beat this here?
The plain truth:
- IPv4 is here to
Owen DeLong wrote:
It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative domains.
is the corner case.
Obviously, if the apartment complex has no log files, then yes, it remains
relatively useless
It is completely useless for the opacity required by police.
In your one
> On Mar 31, 2022, at 20:51, Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative
>> domains.
>
> So, if an IPv6 prefix is assigned to an apartment building and
> the building has no logging mechanism on how addresses
Owen DeLong wrote:
It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative domains.
So, if an IPv6 prefix is assigned to an apartment building and
the building has no logging mechanism on how addresses are used
within the building, the problem of audit trail opacity is
Owen DeLong wrote:
Yep… He’s absolutely right… We need to find a way to get the networks that
aren’t deploying IPv6 to
get off the dime and stop holding the rest of the world hostage in the IPv4
backwater.
Owen
You keep championing that approach, essentially unchanged for the past
20
Pv4?
>>> People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years.
>>> What will it take to be IPv6 only?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: NANOG >> <mailto:nanog-bounces+jacques.latour=cira...@nanog.org>> On Be
> On Mar 31, 2022, at 15:32 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Matthew Petach wrote:
>>
>>
>> In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4
>> somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4
>> address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy
> But as anyone who has tried to deploy IPv6-only networks quickly discovers,
> at the present time, you can't deploy an IPv6-only network with any
> success on the global internet today. There's too many IPv6-ish networks
> out there that haven't fully established their infrastructure to be
gt;> When are we going to give up on IPv4?
>> People can run IPv4 all they want inside their networks for 1000s of years.
>> What will it take to be IPv6 only?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: NANOG On Behalf Of
>> Owen DeLong via NANOG
>> Sent: March 29, 2022 3:52
Matthew Petach wrote:
In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4
somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4
address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without
also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:47 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
> If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
>> supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
>> seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
>>
>
> That is not an accurate statement.
>
> The
> On Mar 30, 2022, at 17:00 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Tom Beecher wrote:
>>
>>If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
>>supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
>>seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
>>
>>
1 - 100 of 384 matches
Mail list logo
