Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 1:22 AM Joe Maimon wrote: > The true dilemma is that any amelioration of IPv4 scarcity may indeed > contribute to further delaying mass global IPv6 adoption, regardless of > whose effort and time is involved. > > And I find advocating for that to be wrong and perhaps to

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: Because it is a single Internet, and what we do in some parts of Internet will affect others? Because, at least in my case, I'm investing my efforts in what it seems to be the best in the long-term for the global community, not my personal preferences?

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Saku Ytti wrote: What if many/most large CDN, cloud, tier1 would commonly announce a plan to drop all IPv4 at their edge 20 years from now? How would that change our work? What would we stop doing and what would we start doing? I cant see how it would change or do anything IPv6-related

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 18:19, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > 3)" ... Changes to hardware and software to make use of 240/4 as ordinary > unicast IP addresses can and should proceed in parallel to such debate. ": > Agreed. Since through the EzIP Project,

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I agree. iMO, this 240/4 issue is another one of those tussles in cyberspace <https://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf>. But I don’t fault IETF people or anyone else who pursues technical solutions to these types of problems as long as they are open and honest

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Hi, Bill: 1)    Thanks for confirming my understanding of the 240/4 history. Basically, those in charge of the Internet appear to be leaving the community in the state of informal debates, since there is no more formal IPv4 working group. 2)    On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

errin" escribió: On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:58 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: > Exactly, many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: IPv6 is the only viable long-term solution. > > The effort to “reinvent” any part of IPv4 or patch

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:58 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: > Exactly, many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: IPv6 is > the only viable long-term solution. > > The effort to “reinvent” any part of IPv4 or patches to it, then test that > everythin

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Exactly, many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: IPv6 is the only viable long-term solution. The effort to “reinvent” any part of IPv4 or patches to it, then test that everything keeps working as expected, versus the benefits and gained time, it is much best invested

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

> On Mar 10, 2022, at 8:44 PM, Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > IIRC, at some time, perhaps when CIDR was deployed widely and > having something other than IPv4 was a hot topic, there was a > discussion on releasing 240/4 in IETF. Reasonings against it were > th

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

Greco <mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net>,nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Message-ID: <mailto:cad6ajgtyqt-omq_kxxfe-soz

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: I believe that talking about removing IPv4 in any capacity /now/ is a disservice to the larger conversation. We mostly agree. Except that there is a significant vocal portion of the IPv6 spectrum that would like to start obsoleting IPv4 now. I have my

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

On 3/11/22 9:39 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: I am not really convinced that IPv4 can be ignored/marginalized/obsoleted without penetration reaching over 90%, globally. I feel like that's an unfair characterization / summarization. The VAST MAJORITY of the pro IPv6 discussions that I see are

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

Ca By wrote: Google’s number represents how many users reach it over ipv6. Given Google’s ubiquity in the usa, it is a fair barometer for the usa at large. Given google's popularity on handheld platforms, the users of which tend to be much less sensitive to IPv4 translation mechanisms

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 6:36 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > 1)Thanks for the reference. However, Informative Reference 7 of our IETF > Draft cites another IANA document which puts the initial date of the 240/4 > topic back to 1981-09 which was much earlier, in fact,

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members > (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 > NetBlock)) > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti wrote: On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote: I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Hi, Bill: 1)    Thanks for the reference. However, Informative Reference 7 of our IETF Draft cites another IANA document which puts the initial date of the 240/4 topic back to 1981-09 which was much earlier, in fact, coincided with that of RFC 791. 2)    My curiosity questions were

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

William Herrin wrote: Ever since we started our study, we were quite puzzled by why the 240/4 netblock was regarded so special? Why no one could tell us what led to its current status, and even after IPv4 was set to transition to IPv6? https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

started our > study, we were quite puzzled by why the 240/4 netblock was regarded so > special? Why no one could tell us what led to its current status, and even > after IPv4 was set to transition to IPv6? https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-r

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Dear Seth: 1)    " ...  should be ...  ":    Instead of "hand wave", this is a diplomatic expression to challenge the software engineers' knowledge of the networking program code for the current case. Ever since we started our study, we were quite puzzled by wh

RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Wish I was. Will be at MTA in MSP, but will be at WISPAPALOOZA. Love to have a group meet then. -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Travis Garrison Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:12 PM To: Dave Taht Cc: NANOG Subject: RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) I

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, 11:22 Masataka Ohta, wrote: > Saku Ytti wrote: > > > Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll > > be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the > > price of the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes. > > Indeed,

Re: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

To: Dave Taht > Cc: NANOG > Subject: RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) > > I will be attending also. We should try to do a meetup of the NANOG members > > Thank you > Travis Garrison > > > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf > O

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Tom Beecher wrote: The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where there is some forcing event that requires it to be. Unless that occurs, people will continue to spend time and energy coming up with ways to squeeze the blood out of v4 that could have been used

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: One thing is for certain… If folks had put 0.10 as much effort into deploying IPv6 as has been put into arguing about whether or not ~17 /8s worth of IPv4 makes a meaningful difference to the internet as a whole, IPv4 would long since have become irrelevant as

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 16:01, Joe Greco wrote: > I am reading your response as to imply that this is somehow my fault > (for my networks) and that I am a poor leader for not having embraced > v6. If that's not what you meant, great, because I feel like there's > been systemic issues. No, I

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

> > Google sees over 40% of their users on ipv6,* with superior latency * > Uncle Geoff generally debunked this years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt-Xx2CmuQE_channel=NANOG On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:01 AM Ca By wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > >> On

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote: > > > I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still > > heavily v4. Mind boggling. > > Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll > be the same in

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:55:42AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote: > > I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still > > heavily v4. Mind boggling. > > Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll > be the same

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

Saku Ytti wrote: Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the price of the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes. Indeed, we don't need IPv6 at all at least for the next 20 years, which is

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote: > I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still > heavily v4. Mind boggling. Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the price of

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

John Gilmore wrote: Whatever the IPv6 transition might require, it isn't comparable to the small effort needed to upgrade a few laggard OS's to support 240/4 and to do some de-bogonization in the global Internet, akin to what CloudFlare did for 1.1.1.1. It may be a good idea to offer 127/8

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

2)    I am glad that you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while waiting for IPv6 to deliver its promises. 3)    As to your question about where does IPv6 stand today and where is it heading, I like to highlight a r

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

It appears that David Conrad said: >isn’t very far), 240/4 isn’t sourcing or sinking significant traffic on the >Internet. FWIW, my tiny server sees about 20 packets/day from that range. It's not very much but it's hard to imagine why I'm seeing any at all. It's more than I see fr

RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

anagement: https://cloud.linktechs.net -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Travis Garrison Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 2:12 PM To: Dave Taht Cc: NANOG Subject: RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) I will be attending also. We should try to do a meetup of the NANO

RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I will be attending also. We should try to do a meetup of the NANOG members Thank you Travis Garrison -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Dave Taht Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:25 PM To: Tim Howe Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Um, are you suggesting there is sufficiently heavy use of 240/4 to result in a significant security/stability issue if the address space is allocated? I thought you were arguing too many systems would have to be updated to even send/receive packets with 240/4 in the source or destination

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

bility implications of delegating previously undelegated but otherwise unconstrained name space, not name space that has been designated with “for future use” status. That designation has resulted in code that prohibits its use and to make use of 240/4, the code has to be fixed. The name collision problem

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

John, On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:45 AM, John Levine wrote: >> When did squatting become a justification for not allocating addresses? > Um, when can I register my .corp and .home domains? Um, are you suggesting there is sufficiently heavy use of 240/4 to result in a significant security/

Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I am going to attend the WISPA conference in New Orleans next week. (anyone going?). I don't see any topics related to ipv6 there, nor as requirements for broadband grants. I first tried to deploy ipv6 at my wisp 14 years ago, and failed utterly. Since then, I've kept track of that market, and

Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 09:46:41 -0800 David Conrad wrote: > Tim, > > On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe wrote: > > Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported > > v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs. > > Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but despite

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:46:41AM -0800, David Conrad wrote: > Tim, > > On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe wrote: > > Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported > > v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs. > > Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

;should be" easy to fix (but that's > everyone else's problem). I mean, I believe this has been discussed to > death many times over in the past and yet here we still are. Hi Seth, AFAICT, the core of Abraham's proposal is to deploy 240/4 as an addition to RFC1918 space, to be used as

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:38:20 -0800 David Conrad wrote: > When did squatting become a justification for not allocating > addresses? Isn't this essentially the same thing as the DNS name collision problem ICANN has been studying and discussing? Perhaps scale and potential for harm is different,

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

It appears that David Conrad said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:08 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote: >>> Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they >>> tried it and it works. >> Sounds like an excellent reason not to

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:08 AM, John R. Levine wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote: >> Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they >> tried it and it works. > Sounds like an excellent reason not to try to use it for global unicast. When did squatting

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On 3/7/22 2:14 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: The cost of this software engineering should be minimal. So basically no solution is offered to what is the showstopper for this proposal, only a hand wave that it "should be" easy to fix (but that's everyone else's problem). I mean, I believe this

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Mar 9, 2022 at 9:09 AM Abraham Y. Chen mailto:ayc...@avinta.com>> wrote: Dear John: 1)Thanks for your comment on how eMail headers could be used. Dear Bill: 2)I am glad that you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while wait

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

at you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while waiting for IPv6 to deliver its promises. 3)As to your question about where does IPv6 stand today and where is it heading, I like to highlight a recent APNIC blog that you may have read. It also appeared on Cir

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote: Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they tried it and it works. Sounds like an excellent reason not to try to use it for global unicast. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for

V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

Tim, On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe wrote: > Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported > v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs. Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but despite hearing this with some frequency, I haven’t seen much data to

Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Thanks, > Bill Herrin > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:09 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > >> Dear John: >> >> 1)Thanks for your comment on how eMail headers could be used. >> >> Dear Bill: >> >> 2)I am glad that you agree that it should be a vi

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:22:49 -0500 Tom Beecher wrote: > > It doesn't take any OS upgrades for "getting everything to work on > > IPv6". All the OS's and routers have supported IPv6 for more than a > > decade. > > > > There are lots of vendors, both inside and outside the networking space, >

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On 09/03/2022 00:25, Tom Beecher wrote: The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where there is some forcing event that requires it to be. In about two years time, IPv4 addresses will be worth on the order of $100/IP, assuming current trends hold. That's a lot of

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

> > FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be > > useful it would require that every host on the Internet update its > > network stack, which would take on the order of a decade... > > Those network stacks were updated for 240/4 in 2008-2009 -- a decade

202203081821.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

hould work. 3)    " ... if you plan on endpoint computers (such as those in homes) to use the 240/4 netblock. ...   ":    No, we do not. As presented by the RAN demonstration cited by the whitepaper, one of the primary criteria of the EzIP proposal is not to affect the current pri

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

John Levine wrote: > FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be > useful it would require that every host on the Internet update its > network stack, which would take on the order of a decade... Those network stacks were updated for 240/4 in 2008-2009 -- a d

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

I'm beginning to wonder if the internet will survive the ipv6 adoption debates. Here's the real problem which you all can promptly ignore: The IETF et al are full of bright technical people who can design protocols, packet formats, etc. But many of the major problems facing the internet are

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

r 2022, at 13:35, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > > John R. Levine writes: > > > >> This still doesn't mean that screwing around with 240/4 or, an even worse > >> 127/8 minus 127/24, is a good idea. > > > > I hope you'll be slightly mollified to learn th

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

omething that should not be done lightly. It also requires fair compensation to be paid. > On 9 Mar 2022, at 13:35, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > John R. Levine writes: > >> This still doesn't mean that screwing around with 240/4 or, an even worse >> 127/8 minus 127/24, is

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

> On Mar 8, 2022, at 18:35, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > John R. Levine writes: > >> This still doesn't mean that screwing around with 240/4 or, an even worse >> 127/8 minus 127/24, is a good idea. > > I hope you'll be slightly mollified to learn that it's actually 12

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

John R. Levine writes: > This still doesn't mean that screwing around with 240/4 or, an even worse > 127/8 minus 127/24, is a good idea. I hope you'll be slightly mollified to learn that it's actually 127/8 minus 127/16. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127/

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

John Levine writes: > FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. As people will be aware, we have a different draft on this issue, so I'm also going to pipe up here. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ (Our draft offers no specific p

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

agree. There is a great deal of unused or underused v4 space that increasing prices have found and even if the long term cost of setting up v6 is lower, it's more than the short term cost to buy another v4 block. This still doesn't mean that screwing around with 240/4 or, an even worse 127/8

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

John Levine wrote: Oh, absolutely. I have conversations with my hosting provider in which they tell me that nobody has ever asked for IPv6 other than me, and they had no idea their upstream (Spectrum) had native IPv6. So I keep using a tunnel. Why do you think you need IPv6? What is the

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 19:25 -0500, Tom Beecher wrote: > > > The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time > where there is some forcing event that requires it to be.  > > Unless that occurs, people will continue to spend time and energy > coming up with ways to squeeze the

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On 8 Mar 2022 19:14:34 -0500 "John Levine" wrote: > I have conversations with my hosting provider in which they tell me > that nobody has ever asked for IPv6 other than me, Oh you too? I got that response all the time. Then I when I press, they usually say they've had one, two, three, maybe

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

oing instead. I don't foresee anything changing for most of the rest of our careers, and possibly the next generation behind us. On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:13 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine wrote: > > FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 i

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

It appears that William Herrin said: >On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine wrote: >> FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be >> useful it would require >> that every host on the Internet update its network stack, > >H

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine wrote: > FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be useful > it would require > that every host on the Internet update its network stack, Hi John, That's incorrect and obviously so. While repurposing 240/4 a

Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

whole lot of cc:s to people who aren't even part of this group/list. > One wonders with this many cc:s, how many bcc:s there also were, and to whom. There are several thousand people on the NANOG list, and public web archives. I don't think this is a useful question. FWIW, I also don

CC:s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

even before I received any follow-up notice from such, nor my writing > being published. Are you responding to the general distribution or acting as > a moderator? > > 2)" an overly convoluted mechanism to tunnel 240/4. ":We > started our work due

202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

responding to the general distribution or acting as a moderator? 2)    " an overly convoluted mechanism to tunnel 240/4.    ":    We started our work due to curiosity. As we made progresses in various areas, quite a few topics have distilled to a different yet much clear

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

I recall reading the IETF draft some time ago. It seemed like an overly convoluted mechanism to tunnel 240/4. On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 8:50 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > > 0)I was made aware of a recent discussion on this Forum that cited our > work on the 24

202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Dear Colleagues: 0)    I was made aware of a recent discussion on this Forum that cited our work on the 240/4 NetBlock, nicknamed EzIP (Phonetic for Easy IPv4). (Please see, at the end of this MSG, the URL to the discussion and the highlighted text where the citation was made.) 1

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

pe atlas and a provider deciding to announce something the atlas is good stuff, I am curious (OT) if they have added a videoconferencing-like test to it? > like 240.2.3.0/24 to see if it can be reached. I very much would like a study of 240/4. In particular, announcing 255.255/16 might pick up a lot of

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 09:43:26AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 11/19/21 8:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > these measurements would be great if there could be a full research- > > style paper, with methodology artifacts, and reproducible results. > > otherwise it disappears in the gossip

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 1:21 PM John Gilmore wrote: > We have found no ASIC IP implementations that > hardwire in assumptions about specific IP address ranges. If you know > of any, please let us know, otherwise, let's let that strawman rest. > There's at least one. Marvell PresteriaCX (its

Re: Class E addresses? 240/4 history

type, or firewall product that would fail unsafely if it saw packets from the 240/4 range. To be fair, you were asking him to recall a conversation that did take place quite some time earlier. As documented in our Internet-Draft, all such products known to us either accept those packets

Re: Class E addresses? 240/4 history

ought would fail. He was unable or unwilling to point out even a single operating system, Internet node type, or firewall product that would fail unsafely if it saw packets from the 240/4 range. As documented in our Internet-Draft, all such products known to us either accept those packets as unica

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On November 20, 2021 at 21:29 j...@west.net (Jay Hennigan) wrote: > > That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people > > still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software > > versions? Connected to the Internet? # date; lscpu Sun Nov 21 20:14:44 EST 2021

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/20/21 9:29 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: On 11/19/21 10:27, William Herrin wrote: Howdy, That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software versions? Connected to the Internet? There are lots of very old

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Just replying to Joe's post here to add a little more context to at least one of the problems that will certainly appear if this would come about. FreeBSD operators have been using this space for quite a long time for many NAT'ing reasons including firewalls and other services behind them for

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 6:27 PM Joe Maimon wrote: > Tom Beecher wrote: > [...] > > > > IPv6 isn't perfect. That's not an excuse to ignore it and invest the > > limited resources we have into Yet Another IPv4 Zombification Effort. > > > As noted earlier, False Dilemma > > Even worse, your

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Greetings John and all On 18.11.21 21:54, John Gilmore wrote: We succeeded in upgrading every end-node and every router in the Internet in the late '90s and early 2000's, when we deployed CIDR. It was doable. We know that because we did it! (And if we hadn't done it, the Internet would not

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Jay Hennigan wrote: On 11/19/21 10:27, William Herrin wrote: Howdy, That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software versions? Connected to the Internet? There are lots of very old networked industrial

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/21 10:27, William Herrin wrote: Howdy, That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software versions? Connected to the Internet? There are lots of very old networked industrial machines with embedded

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Tom Beecher wrote: The biggest impediment to IPv6 adoption is that too many people invest too much time and resources in finding ways to squeeze more blood from the IPv4 stone. Reverse that. IPv6 has impediments to adoption, which is why more time and resources are being spent to keep

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

That fine. XP supports IPv6 and apart from the DNS needing a IPv4 recursive server it works fine. -- Mark Andrews > On 21 Nov 2021, at 11:23, ML wrote: > >  > >> On 11/19/2021 1:27 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:22 AM Zu wrote: >>> One anecdote (the

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/2021 1:27 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:22 AM Zu wrote: One anecdote (the non-technical grandma) illustrates a very real problem that would need to be addressed -- there are non-technical people (of all ages, if your concerned about ageism) which will need

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On 20-Nov-2021, at 02:21, g...@toad.com wrote: > > David Conrad wrote: >> Doesn't this presume the redeployed addresses would be allocated >> via a market rather than via the RIRs? >> >> If so, who would receive the money? > > You ask great questions. > > The community can and should do

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 12:11 , Jim wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:24 PM David Conrad wrote: >> > ... >> Some (not me) might argue it could (further) hamper IPv6 deployment by >> diverting limited resources. > > It may help IPv6 deployment if more V4 addresses are eventually >

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 11:46 , John Gilmore wrote: > > Joe Maimon wrote: >> And all thats needed to be done is to drop this ridiculous .0 for >> broadcast compatibility from standards.why is this even controversial? > > Not to put words in his mouth, but that's how original BSD

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 10:22 , John Curran wrote: > > On 18 Nov 2021, at 8:14 PM, b...@theworld.com > wrote: >> That suggests an idea: >> >> Repurpose these addresses and allow the RIRs to sell them in the IPv4 >> secondary markets with some earmark for the funds.

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> > It may help IPv6 deployment if more V4 addresses are eventually > released and allocated > No, it won't. The biggest impediment to IPv6 adoption is that too many people invest too much time and resources in finding ways to squeeze more blood from the IPv4 stone. If tomorrow, RFCs were

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

David Conrad wrote: > Doesn't this presume the redeployed addresses would be allocated > via a market rather than via the RIRs? > > If so, who would receive the money? You ask great questions. The community can and should do the engineering to extend the IP implementations. If that doesn't

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Fred Baker wrote: > I tend to think that if we can somehow bless a prefix and make be > global unicast address space, it needs to become Global Unicast > Address Space. Yes, I agree. The intention is that with the passage of time, each prefix becomes more and more reachable, til it's as close

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Nick Hilliard wrote: >> consider three hosts on a broadcast domain: A, B and >> C. A uses the lowest address, B accepts a lowest address, but C does >> not. Then A can talk to B, B can talk to C, but C cannot talk to A. >> This does not seem to be addressed in the draft. Section

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:24 PM David Conrad wrote: > ... > Some (not me) might argue it could (further) hamper IPv6 deployment by > diverting limited resources. It may help IPv6 deployment if more V4 addresses are eventually released and allocated Assuming the RIRs would ultimately like to

<    1   2   3   4   >