Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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 wri

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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 fo

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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 cho

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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 ev

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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 supp

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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-comprehen

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

In message , Marshall Eubanks writes: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Conrad 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 experimen

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

In message , Chris Donley writes: > > On 12/5/11 2:13 PM, "John C Klensin" wrote: > > > > > > >--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad > > wrote: > > > >> Bob, > >> > >> On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: > >>> So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs ch

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

In message <0780b9d75d1ce23f15b5a...@pst.jck.com>, John C Klensin writes: > --On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad > 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

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

On 12/5/11 2:13 PM, "John C Klensin" wrote: > > >--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad > 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

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad 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 the CPE fir

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

> From: Nick Hilliard > 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, why are

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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 de

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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-ho

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

Noel, On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Bob Hinden > >> 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 wit

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

> From: Bob Hinden > 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 routers of their cust

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

Marshall, On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Conrad 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) reserve

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Conrad 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 consensus about thi

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frank Ellermann 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 rejecting/rejecting/ > > ACK.  The

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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? ... >

"class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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