On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:05 PM David Conrad wrote:
>
> Barry,
>
> On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
> We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with very
> limited success
>
>
> According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it loo
John Curran wrote:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/
>
> ... this Internet draft ... can't be safely deployed in the actual
> real-world Internet
The draft *has been* safely deployed in the actual real-world Internet.
It is in all Linux nodes since 2008, and al
> What's the group's current thought on emergence or prevalence of
> IPv6-only hosts ?
They aren’t needed; dual stack hosts will work just fine in a single stack
network. When they’re needed, they will be normal but nobody will care.
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 2:13 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
>> Serious consideration requires a serious proposal - I don’t think we’ve seen
>> one yet.
>
> I would posit that draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-03 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ ) should
> be cons
>
> Serious consideration requires a serious proposal - I don’t think we’ve
> seen one yet.
>
I would posit that draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-03 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ ) should
be considered a serious proposal, in so much as what is proposing is th
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 1:19 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> John Curran wrote:
>>
>> By the way, you shouldn’t feel particularly bad about skipping out on the
>> interoperability requirement – anything involving interworking with the
>> installed Internet is hard, and this is the same lesson that t
John Curran wrote:
On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:09 AM, John Curran wrote:
...
Interoperability isn’t insurmountable, but does take some investment
of effort. One can imagine any number of techniques (e.g. flag day
after which “production devices” on the Internet must support 240/4,
or DNS res
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:09 AM, John Curran wrote:
> ...
> Interoperability isn’t insurmountable, but does take some investment of
> effort. One can imagine any number of techniques (e.g. flag day after which
> “production devices” on the Internet must support 240/4, or DNS resolver
> hacks t
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 2:09 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> David Conrad wrote:
>>
>> Again, the issue isn’t fixing a bit of code in a known source tree. It is
>> getting all the instantiations of that bit of code implemented, tested, and
>> deployed across all the myriad supported and unsupported
David Conrad wrote:
How trivial would the change be in a product by a company that no
longer exists or a product line that is no longer supported? Will
Microsoft update all previous versions of Windows? Will the myriad of
deployed embedded systems sitting forgotten in closets be updated? And
David Conrad wrote:
Barry,
On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years
with very limited success
According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it
looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 ye
in some time or in a very long
> time?
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From:
> Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC
> To: NANOG
>
>
>
> My suggestion
Joe,
On Nov 21, 2022, at 4:30 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> As I and others have pointed out, it depends on how it is used.
Sure, and with enough thrust and an appropriate trajectory, pigs fly quite
well, although the landing can get messy. With enough constraints, any problem
becomes trivially sol
David Conrad wrote:
Barry,
On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years
with very limited success
According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it
looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 ye
Barry,
On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with very
> limited success
According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like
we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years. https://stats.lab
at 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC
To: NANOG
My suggestion is ignore anyone who says it would be too difficult to
get people to adopt a change or take too long. Someone always says
that, a reasonable riposte is "what would be a reasonable number of
My suggestion is ignore anyone who says it would be too difficult to
get people to adopt a change or take too long. Someone always says
that, a reasonable riposte is "what would be a reasonable number of
people / years?" Surely they must have some numbers in mind, no?
We've been trying to get pe
Dear Tom:
0) Thanks for your advice.
1) What I wrote was just informal online chatting. I was not attempting
to make a water-tight legal statement. The fact is, we have identified
at least one concise case of how this task could be done easily, as
reported in Appendix D of the EzIP IETF Draft
>
> As stated in Subsection 4.A. of the "Revamp The
> Internet" whitepaper, all need be done is "Simply disable the existing
> software codes that have been disabling the use of the 240/4 netblock."
>
Some friendly feedback. The phrase "all that needs to be done" , is
exceptionally reductive, and
Dear Mark:
0) Thanks for the clarification. I understand. A short message through
the cyberspace, especially between parties who have never met can be
easily skewed. I am glad that I asked you, instead of taking it
negatively without raising my hand.
1) "...I'd, rather, expend those resource
On 11/20/22 19:02, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
Dear Mark:
0) I am surprised at your apparently sarcastic opinion.
1) The EzIP proposal as referenced by my last MSG is the result of an
in-depth system engineering effort. Since the resultant schemes do not
rely on any protocol development, IET
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 2:03 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> Dear Mark:
>
> 0) I am surprised at your apparently sarcastic opinion.
>
> 1) The EzIP proposal as referenced by my last MSG is the result of an
> in-depth system engineering effort. Since the resultant schemes do not
> rely on any proto
Dear Mark:
0) I am surprised at your apparently sarcastic opinion.
1) The EzIP proposal as referenced by my last MSG is the result of an
in-depth system engineering effort. Since the resultant schemes do not
rely on any protocol development, IETF does not need be involved.
Especially, its f
23 matches
Mail list logo
