In message 20111206055756.gd20...@besserwisser.org, =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nils
son writes:
Subject: Re: class E (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-s=
pace-request) Date: Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 08:38:56AM +1100 Quoting Mark Andr=
ews (ma...@isc.org):
=20
Ask everyone everywhere
Mark,
On 12/5/11 10:38 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It's not that the CPE's can't renumber. The ISP are already using RFC
1918, in good faith, internally to talk to the management interfaces
of modems so using RFC 1918 is forcing the ISP's to renumber out of
whichever RFC 1918 block that is
In message 4ede4884.1030...@cisco.com, Eliot Lear writes:
Mark,
On 12/5/11 10:38 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It's not that the CPE's can't renumber. The ISP are already using RFC
1918, in good faith, internally to talk to the management interfaces
of modems so using RFC 1918 is forcing the
On Dec 5, 2011, at 4:58 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Dec 5, 2011, at 1:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
this is a much stronger argument for a dear customer, either renumber or
upgrade your
hardware position
I'd imagine the vast majority of the customers of ISPs who are facing this
issue
Subject: Re: class E (was: Consensus Call:
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request) Date: Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at
12:19:49AM +1100 Quoting Mark Andrews (ma...@isc.org):
In message 20111206055756.gd20...@besserwisser.org, =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?=
Nils
son writes:
Subject: Re: class E
On 5 December 2011 04:27, Cameron Byrne wrote:
[they = the IETF]
they underscored that point by not rejecting various past attempts at
expanding private ipv4 space like 240/4.
Sorry. S/not rejecting/rejecting/
ACK. The last state I'm aware of is that the 240/4 addresses minus one
were and
Frank,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The last state I'm aware of is that the 240/4 addresses minus one
were and still are (RFC 5735) reserved for IETF experiments, did I miss
some newer IETF consensus about this?
...
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frank Ellermann
hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkzt...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 December 2011 04:27, Cameron Byrne wrote:
[they = the IETF]
they underscored that point by not rejecting various past attempts at
expanding private ipv4 space like 240/4.
Sorry. S/not
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Frank,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The last state I'm aware of is that the 240/4 addresses minus one
were and still are (RFC 5735) reserved for IETF experiments, did I miss
some newer IETF
Marshall,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Frank,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The last state I'm aware of is that the 240/4 addresses minus one
were and still are (RFC 5735)
From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
As far as I can tell, it would only require the CPE router, CGN's, and
routers between the CPE and CGN's to support it. ... I think it's
reasonable for the ISPs who want to deploy this CGN gear to the deal with
upgrading the CPE
Noel,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
As far as I can tell, it would only require the CPE router, CGN's, and
routers between the CPE and CGN's to support it. ... I think it's
reasonable for the ISPs who want to deploy this CGN gear to
On 05/12/2011 18:58, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why don't the ISPs get together, outside the IETF (I so wanted to expand on
this thought, but I had better not), and have one of them - one which is in
an area with an RIR with the most available space - go their RIR and ask for
a /10 for their in-house
Bob,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs choosing to do this
could make sure that their customers CPE can support class E addresses,
upgrade the CPE firmware,
I think the ISPs are saying that there is a non-trivial base of
From: Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie
Given that we just saw a /16 sold for $12/ip, what makes you think that
any carrier would open up a /10 allocated to them for the good of
humanity, at a potential future asset loss of $50m?
I hear you, but... if these things are worth so much,
--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad
d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Bob,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs choosing
to do this could make sure that their customers CPE can
support class E addresses, upgrade
On 12/5/11 2:13 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad
d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Bob,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs choosing
to do this could make sure
In message 0780b9d75d1ce23f15b5a...@pst.jck.com, John C Klensin writes:
--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad
d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Bob,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs choosing
to do this
In message cb028331.30361%c.don...@cablelabs.com, Chris Donley writes:
On 12/5/11 2:13 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad
d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Bob,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
So a CGN
In message
CAJNg7V+wxN_hsqGA_hQOr0Yc3Xyf1dqJQmaCDjzRu-zGCf_-=w...@mail.gmail.com
, Marshall Eubanks writes:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Frank,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The last state I'm aware of is that the 240/4
John,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 1:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
this is a much stronger argument for a dear customer, either renumber or
upgrade your
hardware position
I'd imagine the vast majority of the customers of ISPs who are facing this
issue would react either with anger or non-comprehension
Subject: Re: class E (was: Consensus Call:
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request) Date: Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at
08:38:56AM +1100 Quoting Mark Andrews (ma...@isc.org):
Ask everyone everywhere that is using this block, in good faith,
for some purpose other than supporting addresses behind
22 matches
Mail list logo
