If you want to garner discussion or support for your draft RFC, it's probably better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF channels.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: > Hi, Fred: > > 0) Thank you for a set of references. > > 1) We cited only one IETF Draft (Wilson, et al.) among them, because it > was the first and only one that clearly stated its limitation (Section 2. > Caveats of Use). More importantly, it was written by three top APNIC > officials. Later efforts on this topic have not introduced (based on my > reading) any more essence to the topic. > > 2) "... I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put > it more simply.... ": With your knowledge of the past, you are > uniquely qualified to critique on our work. However, it would be more > expedient for everyone, if you could first read through at least the > Abstract and the Conclusions of the EzIP IETF Draft, before commenting. > This is because EzIP proposal is based on the same general idea as the > references you cited, but with a slight extra step that produced a series > of surprising results. In particular, we took the "Caveats" above to our > hearts before proceeding. So, please put such issues behind you while > reviewing our work. Thanks, > > Regards, > > > Abe (2022-03-14 14:39) > > > > ------------------------------ > NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15 > Message: 17 > Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:26:11 -0700 > From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.i...@gmail.com> <fredbaker.i...@gmail.com> > To: "Abraham Y. Chen" <ayc...@avinta.com> <ayc...@avinta.com>, William Herrin > <b...@herrin.us> <b...@herrin.us> > Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock > Message-ID: <79746dec-8c8b-4d6d-b1d6-cb0a0003a...@gmail.com> > <79746dec-8c8b-4d6d-b1d6-cb0a0003a...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Mar 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> > <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: > > 2) On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically > reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4 netblock > back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means whether to > change the 240/4 status is not an issue. The question is whether we can > identify an application that can maximize its impact. > > https://blog.apnic.net/2022/01/19/ip-addressing-in-2021/ > > I think there might be value in reviewing the discussion of the related > Internet Drafts > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-reclassification-03https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-reclassification > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-wilson-class-e > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-fuller-240space > > The walkaway I had from these discussions was that while changing the > definition of the address space would allow RIRs to sell more IPv4 address > space for a few weeks (such as happened to APNIC when the last /8's were > handed out), there were not enough addresses in the identified pools to solve > the address shortage. So it was in the end a fool's errand. If you want to > have address space to address the current shortage, you need an addressing > architecture with more addresses. > > I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put it more simply. > > ------------------------------ > > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> > <#m_-3820859315811704609_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >
