Re: The Reg does 240/4

2024-02-16 Thread Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG
inline Christopher Hawker writes: > Hi Christian, > > The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, > without potentially having to fork out > substantial amounts of money. That would then be using IPv6 with IPv4 transition translation etc at the ingress/egress to your

Re: The Reg does 240/4

2024-02-15 Thread Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG
excuse top posting - I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it is just going to sustain the rentier sinecures of the existing IPv4 incumbencies. In other words if RIRs don't use it boost new entrants it will just add another knot to the stranglehold we are in vis IPv4. I c

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

2022-04-02 Thread christian de larrinaga via NANOG
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. Speak

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

2022-03-27 Thread Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG
On 27 March 2022 15:53:25 Brandon Butterworth wrote: On Sun Mar 27, 2022 at 12:31:48AM -0400, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: EzIP proposes to deploy 240/4 address based RANs, each tethering off the current Internet via one IPv4 public address. So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connection

Re: VPN recommendations?

2022-02-12 Thread Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG
Intriguing. This week I started to look around for new wireguard implementation tools and appliances. I've used openvpn and ipsec in the main although last month put together a 10x and IPv6 wireguard net in my home and out to two vps hosts which is handy. For my own use this is ok -ish, but

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

2021-05-31 Thread Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG
Nobody needs more than 64k of RAM. On Sun 30 May 2021 at 14:28, Mike Hammett wrote: That doesn't really serve any value and 99.99% of people would not pay any more than $50 for the ability, so your ability to execute such a system is limited. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Comp

Re: DoD IP Space

2021-04-25 Thread Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG
Is the DoD still the owner? On Sun 25 Apr 2021 at 10:24, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: It’s a direct militarization of a civilian utility. I think I’d characterize it, rather, as a possible privatization of public property. If someone builds a hou