On 2007-08-07 16:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Redesignation of 240/4 from 'Future Use to Limited
Use for Large Private Internets'
Author(s) : P. Wilson, et al.
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 10:14:03 ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-08-07 16:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Redesignation of 240/4 from 'Future Use to Limited
Use for
Large
On 2007-08-08 09:40, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
...
Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses, so nobody would
ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet.
That will be a bit of a challenge in private networks too :-)
Brian
---
C:\ver
Microsoft Windows XP
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 2007-08-08 09:40, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
...
Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses, so
nobody would ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet.
That will be a bit of a challenge in private networks too :-)
Much smaller. If
What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more address
space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
I see the point about regarding 240.0.0.0/4 as tainted space and
therefore being less than useful on the public Internet.
Harald
Brian E
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Ok, so money changes hands, and then what? ARIN obviously can't
rubberstamp the title transfer after this week's public declaration
against address trading, so the ISP in question will have to get the
rest of the world to route it despite angry looks (or worse?)
Carsten Bormann writes:
Cheaper to use IPv6, then.
Non-starter, I'd say.
I'm not sure using this class e thing + ipv6 is significantly more
expensive than using either alone, so we may be looking at way to let
some people transition with less pain: A big network can grow bigger
before some
seems like the last thing the Internet needs is more private address
space.
Keith
This document directs the IANA to designate the block of IPv4
addresses from 240.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 (240.0.0.0/4) as unicast
address space for limited use in large private Internets.
On 8-aug-2007, at 12:07, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Routing certificates are simple. If HP sells (lends, leases,
gifts, insert-favourite-transaction-type-here) address space to
someone, HP issues a certificate (or set of certificates) saying
that this is how HP wants the address space to be
The problem as I see it is that we have spotted the iceberg and we face a
choice, at this point we still have time to steer away and avoid it, instead we
seem to have people attempting to legislate the iceberg out of existence.
People have traded IPv4 address blocks as assets with a financial
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
Given that we have a shortage of IPv4 space I cannot see how we could possibly
put a quarter billion IPv4 addresses beyond use just because a number of
unspecified IPv4 stacks have issues.
Rather than wall off the space as private and thus put it beyond any use
On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more
address space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
I see the point about regarding 240.0.0.0/4 as tainted space and
therefore being less than useful on the
In RFC 793, is this statement (Section 3.4, Figure 10 for Half-Open
Connection Discovery) a MUST or a SHOULD?
When the SYN arrives at line 3, TCP B, being in a synchronized state,
and the incoming segment outside the window, responds with an
acknowledgment indicating what sequence it next
On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more
address space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
I see the point about regarding 240.0.0.0/4 as tainted space
On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more
address space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
I see
Title: RE: I-D
ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
At 10:18 AM -0700 8/8/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
And then you quoted a message that shows examples of some
stacks:
C:\ver
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\ping -n 1 247.1.2.3
Pinging 247.1.2.3
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
Some larger providers and private organizations who depend upon private IPv4
addresses have complained there is no suitably large private IP address
range which can assure each user within their network can obtain a unique
private IP address. It would
If a cable NAT box could survive on a tainted IPv4 we might well be able to
find a use for them.
I don't see how the addresses are any more viable as private space as public.
Given the stakes with IPv4 allocations I would like to see a technical strategy
in which the optimal course of action
If this really would buy us even a single year then we have to do it. Two years
is the difference between a train wreck and an orderly transition.
The question is whether we can buy any time with this change. That does not
look very hopeful. But there might be opportunity.
I certainly don't
Hi,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
I think it might be easier to identify stacks that don't disallow
240/4. I don't actually know of any widespread ones.
Rather than wall off the space as private and thus put it beyond
any use we
At 4:36 PM +0200 8/8/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 8-aug-2007, at 12:07, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Routing certificates are simple. If HP sells (lends, leases,
gifts, insert-favourite-transaction-type-here) address space to
someone, HP issues a certificate (or set of certificates) saying
We need to get some real economists involved here and some real lawyers. We
do have some net-savy lawyers on tap, but economists are going to be harder to
find, or rather they are going to be easy to find but not so easy to find good
ones who are not peddling some ideology.
I think getting
On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:22 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
I think it might be easier to identify stacks that don't disallow
240/4. I don't actually know of any widespread ones.
Rather than wall off the
Not that I want to be in this argument, but I was intrigued by the
name-dropping from folks who're not silly...
Ned Freed wrote:
BTW, I suspect you are correct about about the IPv6 transition not being Pareto
efficient at the present time, but IMO the bigger issue is that it is widely
As for the address issue, I have to agree with PHB here as well: If these
addresses are usable in a reasonable time frame then we shouldn't be quick to
give them up for private use and if they are unusable in a reasonable time
frame it really doesn't matter what we do with them. So I guess the
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extensions to GMPLS RSVP Graceful Restart '
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and
26 matches
Mail list logo
