On 27 Sep 2011, at 5:45 , Christian Huitema wrote:
if an address space is somehow set aside, we have no mechanism to enforce
that only ISP use it. So we have to assume it will be used by whoever feels
like it.
How is that different from the current situation? Is there a reason why
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
And who cares anyway? If people feel it's a good idea to use addresses in the
240/4 block, more power to them. That saves more usable addresses for other
uses.
WEG] The problem is that people really can't today, because vendors
On Sep 26, 2011, at 10:07 AM, George, Wes wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
To: Cameron Byrne
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt
On 26 Sep 2011, at 18:41 , Keith Moore wrote:
The problem isn't in the difficulty of finding these changes and fixing them,
for currently maintained code. The problem is in the zillions of systems in
the field that have assumptions about 240/4 wired into them, most of which
either have no
On Sep 26, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 26 Sep 2011, at 18:41 , Keith Moore wrote:
The problem isn't in the difficulty of finding these changes and fixing
them, for currently maintained code. The problem is in the zillions of
systems in the field that have
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Sep 26, 2011, at 10:07 AM, George, Wes wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
To: Cameron Byrne
Cc: IETF
Regardless of the ease of implementing the change (which is quite simple
in the linux case for example), the question is really what is the
impact on existing systems? The presumption is they won't change until
they age out of the network which is the same reason any a+p solution
that requires
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.orgmailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
The problem is in the zillions of systems in the field that have assumptions
about 240/4 wired into them, most of which either have no
On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:15 PM, George, Wes wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
The problem is in the zillions of systems in the field that have assumptions
about 240/4 wired into them, most of
On 26 September 2011 16:07, George, Wes wrote:
I’m willing to write a draft about it if there are people willing
to support it, but I only have so many windmills that I can tilt at
per cycle, so I’d like to hear support either privately or publicly
before I undertake it.
Maybe the IETF could
caused more harm than good?
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:16 PM
To: George, Wes
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: 240/4 unreservation (was RE: Last Call:
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Maybe the IETF could agree that it won't use the former class E for
any past, present, or future experiments. Updating RFC 1112 (STD 5)
or maybe RFC 1166, and then RFC 5735 for 6.25% of all windmills minus
one.
Given that NAT can expand the space 100 or 1000 times,
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Oops, I failed to send the following to the list.
Updating RFC 1112 (STD 5)
or maybe RFC 1166, and then RFC 5735 for 6.25% of all windmills minus
one.
Updating RFC1112 is not necessary because, even though it says:
*a datagram whose source address does not
On Sep 26, 2011, at 6:21 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
We see here a proposal to create site local IPv4 addresses for Internet
providers. The IETF previously expanded significant efforts to deprecate IPv6
site local addresses. Why exactly do we believe that IPv4 site local
addresses would
Not exactly to play devil's advocate here, but I don't think these are quite
like site-locals. It seems like they're more like ISP locals.
I know that is the proposition. But if an address space is somehow set aside,
we have no mechanism to enforce that only ISP use it. So we have to assume
15 matches
Mail list logo
