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 9:11 AM Tim Howe wrote: > > 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 lot

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

I have qualms about these drafts also. However, even if the IETF does not move forward with any of them (not even to adopt them as WG items), that doesn’t mean they never will. Times change. Circumstances change. The IETF has changed its position on several (IMO) key issues during its existe

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

No quibble about the discussion happening on a NOG list, not at all. But frankly unless the proposal is even starting to move forward in the IETF process such that a standards change is possible, it's just noise. ( I don't predict that the draft being discussed ever gets that far anyways ; it has

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 14-03-2022 05:06, Fred Baker wrote: ... Where IPv6 has a problem today is with enterprise. IMHO, this is basically because enterprise is looking at the bottom line. If ISPs were to do what Mythic Beasts says they do, which is charge their users for address space, IPv6 is virtually free wh

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

On Mar 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Abraham Y. Chen 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

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 Mar 11, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > Google's statistics... I'm not sure which of you I'm replying to. The comment was made on NANOG the other day that we should discount Google statistics because they have been promoting IPv6 for a decade. It's true that they have been doing s

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 for

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, we have identified that the > hardwar

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 . 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 about the

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 blo

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 doub

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 targetin

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, coincided with that of > RF

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 PM

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

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 not about

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

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 7:51 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > 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 q

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

is not in our books. Regards, Abe (2022-03-10 22:49 EST) -- NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 11 Message: 10 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:29:22 -0800 From: Seth Mattinen To:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID:<0c6c8b63-6e84-92da-2e28-89b2b5c6d...@rolle

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 t

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 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))

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 mean

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&ab_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 2042

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: 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 the

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 desp

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

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:31 AM Seth Mattinen wrote: > 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 (bu

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 ha

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 corrobora

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, > th

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

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

> > 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, that have consistently released products with non-existant or broken IP

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

Hi, Stephen: 1)    First, logistics: Since I have been waiting for the moderation of my first posting on NANOG, could I assume that you are sending me this personal eMail as a Moderator? 2)    Perhaps the material provided in my writing was not sufficient, you seem to be expressing concerns

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 decade ago.

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 no

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 11:30 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > > Given the draft lies about the status of 127/8. Words have meanings. > >When all of 127.0.0.0/8 was reserved for loopback addressing, IPv4 >addresses were not yet recognized as scarce. Today, there is no >justification for alloc

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

Given the draft lies about the status of 127/8. Words have meanings. When all of 127.0.0.0/8 was reserved for loopback addressing, IPv4 addresses were not yet recognized as scarce. Today, there is no justification for allocating 1/256 of all IPv4 addresses for this purpose, when only

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

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 it must eventually be. Owen > On

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/ That's

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 plan for ex

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

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 to get v6 going instead. I

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 poi

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 b

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 fo

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

> > Is it not past time we admit that we have no real idea what the > schedule or level of effort will be for making IPv6 ubiquitous? This > year it was more than last year and next year it'll probably be more > than this year. The more precise predictions all seem to have fallen > flat. > The onl

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, > >Hi John, > >That's incorrect and obviously

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 as general purpos

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

It appears that Anne Mitchell said: >> Cc: NANOG , Greg Skinner , >> "Karandikar, Abhay" , Rama Ati >, Bob Corner GMAIL , "Hsing, T. >Russell" , "Chen, Henry C.J." >, ST Hsieh , "Chen, Abraham Y." > >> > >This is a whole lot of cc:s to people who aren't even part of this group/list. > One won

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

> Cc: NANOG , Greg Skinner , > "Karandikar, Abhay" , Rama Ati , > Bob Corner GMAIL , "Hsing, T. Russell" > , "Chen, Henry C.J." , ST Hsieh > , "Chen, Abraham Y." > This is a 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

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

Hi, Tom: 0)    Thanks to your thoughts. 1)    First, logistics: Since this was my first post to this Forum, I got an auto-response stating that my post was being moderated. Then, I got your message even before I received any follow-up notice from such, nor my writing being published. Are you

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 240/4 NetBlock, nick