In message <505cdd21.4080...@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard writes:
> On 21/09/2012 19:23, Tony Hain wrote:
> > App developers have never wanted to be aware of the network.
>
> By not sitting down and thinking about the user experience of a
> dual-stacked network, we have now forced them to be aware
On 21/09/2012 19:23, Tony Hain wrote:
> App developers have never wanted to be aware of the network.
By not sitting down and thinking about the user experience of a
dual-stacked network, we have now forced them to be aware of the network
and that's not a good thing because they are as clued out ab
On 20-Sep-12 20:51, George Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Stephen Sprunk
> wrote:
>> Actually, they're not any different, aside from scale. Some
>> private internets have hundreds to thousands of participants, and
>> they often use obscure protocols on obscure systems that were
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:13 AM
> To: Tony Hain
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
>
> On 21/09/2012 00:47, Tony Hain wrote:
&g
On 21/09/2012 00:47, Tony Hain wrote:
> You are comparing IPv6 to the historical deployment of IPv4. Get with the
> times and realize that CGN/LSN breaks all those wonderful location-aware
> apps people are so into now, not to mention raising the cost for operating
> the network which eventually ge
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 19-Sep-12 03:46, Alex Harrowell wrote:
>> On the other hand, the scarcity is of *globally unique routable*
>> addresses. You can make a case that private use of (non-RFC1918) IPv4
>> resources is wasteful in itself at the moment. To be pr
On 19-Sep-12 03:46, Alex Harrowell wrote:
> On the other hand, the scarcity is of *globally unique routable*
> addresses. You can make a case that private use of (non-RFC1918) IPv4
> resources is wasteful in itself at the moment. To be provocative, what
> on earth is their excuse for not using IPv6
On 18-Sep-12 23:11, Mike Hale wrote:
> "this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease
> does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
>
> I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force
> companies to use the resources they are assi
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:37 PM
> To: Tony Hain
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
>
> On 20/09/2012 20:14, Tony Hain w
> IPv4 is dead, and while the corpse is still wandering about, it will
> collapse soon enough. No amount of bargaining or negotiation will
> prevent that. Just look back to the claims in the '90s about
> SNA-Forever and 'Serious Business doesn't operate on research
> protocols' to see what is ahead
On 20/09/2012 20:14, Tony Hain wrote:
> Once the shift starts it will only take 5 years or so
> before people start asking what all the IPv4 fuss was about.
Tony, ipv4 succeeded because it was compelling enough to do so (killer apps
of the time: email / news / ftp, later www instead of limited BBS
In message <9b9685a4-cd22-41e9-957a-23103d2c8...@corp.arin.net>, John Curran wr
ites:
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:01 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
>
> >> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
> >> publicly routable?
> >=20
> > Because the RIRs aren't in the business of handing
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> George Herbert wrote:
>
>> We could have started it at a more opportune time in the past. We could
>> also have done other things like a straight IPv4-48 or IPv4-64, without the
>> other protocol suite foo that's delayed IPv6 rollout. Oper
On 20-Sep-12 14:14, Tony Hain wrote:
>> Predicting the (f)utility of starting multi-year efforts in the present for
>> future benefit is self-fulfilling.
> To some degree yes. In this particular case, why don't you personally go out
> and tell all those people globally (that have what they consid
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmai...@ttec.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:11 AM
> To: George Herbert
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
>
> ...
>
> Baking in bogonity
On Sep 19, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> It works fine if the gateway has multiple routing tables (VRF or
> equivalent) and application software that is multiple-routing-table
> aware.
If you are arguing that it is technically possible to build an environment in
which every piece
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:21:45 -0400, Joe Maimon said:
> Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with
> IPv6 deployment been working out?
60% of our traffic is IPv6 now. Working out pretty good for us.
pgpcdxf9LHhzh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
>
> Let us spin this another way. If you cannot even expect mild change such
>>> as 240/4 to become prevalent enough to be useful, on what do you base
>>> your
>>> optimism that the much larger changes IPv6 requires will?
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Easy - Greater return on the investment; i.e. - inst
TJ wrote:
Let us spin this another way. If you cannot even expect mild change such
as 240/4 to become prevalent enough to be useful, on what do you base your
optimism that the much larger changes IPv6 requires will?
Joe
Easy - Greater return on the investment; i.e. - instead of getting an I
> Let us spin this another way. If you cannot even expect mild change such
> as 240/4 to become prevalent enough to be useful, on what do you base your
> optimism that the much larger changes IPv6 requires will?
>
> Joe
>
>
Easy - Greater return on the investment; i.e. - instead of getting an IPv4
George Herbert wrote:
We could have started it at a more opportune time in the past. We could also
have done other things like a straight IPv4-48 or IPv4-64, without the other
protocol suite foo that's delayed IPv6 rollout. Operators could have either
used larger baseball bats or more par
On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:01 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
>> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
>> publicly routable?
>
> Because the RIRs aren't in the business of handing out publicly routable
> address space. They're in the business of handing out globally unique
> a
On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:21 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 9/20/12 12:09 AM, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>>
>>> There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be
>>> rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
>>> anyth
> From jrh...@netconsonance.com Wed Sep 19 20:47:44 2012
> Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
> nanog@nanog.org
> From: Jo Rhett
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:46:54 -0700
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> To: Robert Bonomi
>
>
> --Apple
On 9/20/12 12:09 AM, George Herbert wrote:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be
rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
anything at all with 240/4, and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus
far, if n
On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be
> rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
> anything at all with 240/4, and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus
> far, if not for those, it could possibly be r
Op 20 sep 2012, om 07:34 heeft Mark Andrews het volgende geschreven:
>
> In message
>
> , Jimmy Hess writes:
>
> The work to fix this on most OS is minimal. The work to ensure
> that it could be used safely over the big I Internet is enormous.
> It's not so much about making sure new equipme
In message
, Jimmy Hess writes:
> On 9/19/12, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> > Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with
> > IPv6 deployment been working out?
>
> "getting a single extra /4" is considered, not enough of a return
> to make the change.
>
> I don't accept
>
> There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be
> rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
> anything at all with 240/4, and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus
> far, if not for those, it could possibly be reopened as unicast IPv4,
> and be well-supported
>So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
Since it would require upgrading the IP stack on every host on the
internet, uh, no. If you're planning to do that, you might as well
make the upgrade handle IPv6.
>> and no quantity of pixie dust is going to
>> cause new sp
On 9/19/12, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with
> IPv6 deployment been working out?
"getting a single extra /4" is considered, not enough of a return
to make the change.
I don't accept that, but as far as rehabilitating 240/4, that lot
Leo Vegoda wrote:
There was even a dedicated mailing list. But the drafts never made it beyond
drafts, which suggests there was not a consensus in favour of an extra 18
months of IPv4 space with dubious utility value because of issues with
deploy-and-forget equipment out in the wild.
The
In message <505a8828.9040...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 09/19/2012 15:36, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
>
> All the experts I consulted with told me that the effort to make this
> workable on the big-I Internet, not to m
On 09/19/2012 15:36, Joe Maimon wrote:
> So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
All the experts I consulted with told me that the effort to make this
workable on the big-I Internet, not to mention older private networks;
would be equivalent if not greater than the e
On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:50 pm, Joe Maimon wrote:
[…]
>>> So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
>>
>> 6 years of work
>
> What I said is that they knew they would have had at least 6 years or
> _more_ to rehabilitate it, had they made a serious effort at the time
On 9/19/12, John Osmon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:07:33AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> But your unconnected network, is unaffected.
> Ahh... But the network may not be unconnected. Just because *you*
> don't have a path to it doesn't mean others are similarly disconnected.
I'm aware of
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 06:46:54PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
>
> For these networks to have gateways which connect to the outside, you
> have to have an understanding of which IP networks are inside, and
> which IP networks are outside. Your proxy client then forwards
> connections to "outside" netwo
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:46:54 -0700, Jo Rhett said:
> You're all missing the point in grand style.
Given that the entire thread is based on somebody who missed the point
in totally grand style and managed to get press coverage of said missing
the point, I am starting to suspect that several people
On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In the financial and/or brokerage communities, there are internal networks
> with enough 'high value'/sensitive information to justify "air gap"
> isolation from the outide world.
>
> Also, in those industries, there are 'semi-isolated' networks
> From: Jo Rhett
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:42:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
[[ sneck ]]
>
> And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't
> connected to the internet through a firewall? Sk
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:36:08 -0400, Joe Maimon said:
So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
6 years of work
What I said is that they knew they would have had at least 6 years or
_more_ to rehabilitate it, had they made a seri
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:36:08 -0400, Joe Maimon said:
> So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
6 years of work to accomplish something that would only buy us 16 /8s, which
would be maybe 2 year's supply, instead of actually deploying IPv6. And at the
end of the 2 ye
Doug Barton wrote:
We were already looking at the IPv4 runout problems when I was at IANA
in 2004. We already knew (in large part thanks to folks like Tony Hain
and Geoff Huston) that we'd run out in the 2010-2012 time frame, and a
lot of us pushed a lot of rocks up a lot of hills to get our
Imagine that you are the DWP. You're given a block of addresses, told
that they will be yours forever, plan your network accordingly, and
implement your plan.
Now, decades later, people are telling you that "forever" is over, and
you have to totally re-address your network because you have somethi
In article <450916d8-fa1d-4d43-be8f-451d50dd6...@privaterra.org> you write:
>Am I correct in assuming that the unused IP block would not be sold as
>is mentioned in the article, but instead be returned to RIPE to be
>reallocated?
Since there is no chance of either one happening, no.
R's,
John
On 19/09/2012 22:02, David Conrad wrote:
> Assuming for the sake of argument that the 51/8 is actually unused
> (which it apparently isn't), the UK gov't would be under no contractual
> obligation to return the address space to IANA (which is (arguably) the
> allocating registry, not RIPE) -- I bel
Robert,
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming that the unused IP block would not be sold as is
> mentioned in the article, but instead be returned to RIPE to be reallocated?
Assuming for the sake of argument that the 51/8 is actually unused (which it
app
As the subsequent discussion here shows, "unused" is a press inaccuracy.
The nets are in active use; much of that use is not publicly advertised, but
it's still in use.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:35 PM, "Robert Guerra" wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming th
Am I correct in assuming that the unused IP block would not be sold as
is mentioned in the article, but instead be returned to RIPE to be
reallocated?
Robert
On 18 Sep 2012, at 10:07, Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://paritynews.com/network/item/325-department-of-work-and-pensions-uk-in-possession
Those who argue that IPv4 addresses must be reclaimed seem to have
forgotten that even for small organizations, converting IPv4 address space
to RFC1918 addresses, or IPv6, is a huge task given the fixed IP addresses
of many devices (printers, copy machines, etc.), and even worse, the many
key bus
On 9/19/2012 10:52 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 9/19/12 10:42 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't
connected to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks
for equipment management, neither have I.
Plenty of people on this list have w
On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
>> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't publicly
>> routable?
>>
> Because doing anything else is Harmful! There's even an RFC that says so!
> http://tools.ietf.or
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
> publicly routable?
>
Because doing anything else is Harmful! There's even an RFC that says so!
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1627 - Network 10 Considered Harmful
Ford's /8 w
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>
> And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't connected
> to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks for equipment
> management, neither have I.
Yes, for many years. External connections only via Application
On 9/19/12 10:42 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't
connected to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks
for equipment management, neither have I.
Plenty of people on this list have worked on private internet(s) with
real AS num
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:46 AM, Alex Harrowell wrote:
> To be provocative, what on earth is their excuse for not using IPv6
> internally? By definition, an internal network that isn't announced to the
> public Internet doesn't have to worry about happy eyeballs, broken carrier
> NAT, and the like b
There is something that I think they call DNS. It may help.
:)
.as
On 19 Sep 2012, at 02:27, Mike Hale wrote:
> You know what sucks worse than NAT?
>
> Memorizing an IPv6 address. ;)
On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:24 AM, John Osmon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:07:33AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> Assume you have a public IPv4 assignment, and someone else
>> starts routing your assignment... "legitimately" or not, RIR allocation
>> transferred to them, or not.
>>
>> There migh
Op 19-9-2012 14:35, Leo Bicknell schreef:
In a message written on Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:11:50PM -0700, Mike Hale wrote:
I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them
back to the general pool?
There's
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:07:33AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Assume you have a public IPv4 assignment, and someone else
> starts routing your assignment... "legitimately" or not, RIR allocation
> transferred to them, or not.
>
> There might be a record created in a database, and/or internet ro
In a message written on Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:11:50PM -0700, Mike Hale wrote:
> I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
> to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them
> back to the general pool?
While I personally think ARIN should do more t
> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
> publicly routable?
Because the RIRs aren't in the business of handing out publicly routable
address space. They're in the business of handing out globally unique address
space - *one* of the reasons for which may be connecti
On 19/09/12 08:04, goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message ,
goe...@anime.ne
t writes:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale
wrote:
"this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
disease does
eyeronic.des...@gmail.com (Mike Hale) wrote:
> You know what sucks worse than NAT?
> Memorizing an IPv6 address. ;)
I agree. But we'll have to live with it until something better comes along.
> The assumption behind my original question is that the IP space simply
> isn't used anywhere near a
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message , goe...@anime.ne
t writes:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale wrote:
"this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
In message , goe...@anime.ne
t writes:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale wrote:
> >> "this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
> >> disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
> >>
> >> I'd love to hear th
On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:40 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
> Is they are not using them directly on the public internet, then there's no
> reason we can't use them.
>
> Problem solved!
Dude, seriously. Just because they aren't in *YOUR* routing table doesn't mean
that they aren't in hundreds of oth
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale wrote:
"this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
to force com
On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale wrote:
> "this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
> disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
>
> I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
> to force companies to use the resources the
You know what sucks worse than NAT?
Memorizing an IPv6 address. ;)
To everyone:
Thanks for the clarifications. I don't necessarily agree with some of
the arguments...but since I'm not fortunate enough to be in possession
of a /8, that agreement (or lack thereof) is worth the electrons this
em
On 9/18/12, Mike Hale wrote:
> I can accept the legal argument (and I'm assuming that, in the
> original contracts for IP space, there wasn't a clause that allowed
> Internic or its successor to reclaim space).
Assume you have a public IPv4 assignment, and someone else
starts routing your assi
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
> publicly routable?
Because you have private connectivity with other companies and you need
guaranteed unique IP space. No, really, you can't implement NAT for every
possible scen
> "this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
> disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
>
> I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
> to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them
> back to the gener
In message
, M
ike Hale writes:
> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
> publicly routable?
Route announcements can be scoped. See NO-EXPORT. Just because
_you_ can't see the announcement doesn't mean others can't see the
announcement along with the rest of the pu
So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
publicly routable?
Maybe I'm being dense here, but I'm truly puzzled by this (other than
the "this is how our network works and we're not changing it"
argument).
I can accept the legal argument (and I'm assuming that, in the
origi
In message
, M
ike Hale writes:
> "this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
> disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
>
> I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
> to force companies to use the resources they are assigne
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
> I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
> to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them
> back to the general pool?
Here's one: there's little to no legal basis for such reclamation so any such
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, Mike Hale wrote:
> "this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
> disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
>
> I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
> to force companies to use the resources
On 9/18/2012 9:11 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
"this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
to force companies to use the resources they are assigned
"this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them
back to the general pool?
On
On 9/18/2012 9:05 PM, Blair Trosper wrote:
Not to mention Ford Motor Company has 19.0.0.0/8, and there are no
announcements for it whatsoever.
There are other /8s like it...lots of them early allocations.
Why ARIN doesn't revoke them is frankly baffling to me.
ARIN didn't assign them, so why
Not to mention Ford Motor Company has 19.0.0.0/8, and there are no
announcements for it whatsoever.
There are other /8s like it...lots of them early allocations.
Why ARIN doesn't revoke them is frankly baffling to me.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > When IPv4 exhaustion
> When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain;
> there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any
> use of IPv4 which does not involve announcing and routing the address
> space on the internet is a "Non-Use" of IPv4 addresses,
>
> and that that particu
On 9/18/12, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Some people have to learn that not every address is only used on the
> Internet. According to the above there will be large swaths of IPv4 left
> at various large organizations who have /8's as "they are not announced"
> or as the article states it "as there is
> more over, who cares? a /8 is less than 2 months rundown globally...
> and, once upon a time I constructed on this list a usecase for apple's
> /8 ... it's really not THAT hard to use a /8, it's well within the
> capabilities of a gov't to do so... especially given they PROBABLY
> have:
> o unc
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:29 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, james jones wrote:
>
>> Are we still talking about this? I setup a lan at home once at that used
>> 6/8 :)
>
>
> They have nuclear weapons, too. Just saying.
Which, the Army? I don't believe that's true anymore. I th
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, james jones wrote:
Are we still talking about this? I setup a lan at home once at that used
6/8 :)
They have nuclear weapons, too. Just saying.
R's,
John
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
Are we still talking about this? I setup a lan at home once at that used
6/8 :)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >>And someone should further alert him that they do not "own" these
> addresses.
> >
> > MIT is prob
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>And someone should further alert him that they do not "own" these addresses.
>
> MIT is probably using less of their /8 than MOD is, and as far as I
> know, MIT has neither commando forces nor nuclear weapons.
>
> You might want to pick, so to
>And someone should further alert him that they do not "own" these addresses.
MIT is probably using less of their /8 than MOD is, and as far as I
know, MIT has neither commando forces nor nuclear weapons.
You might want to pick, so to speak, your battles more carefully.
R's,
John
> The only slight snag in his argument is that the addresses are not unused.
> Not announced != Not used.
And for the definitive answer on this block, the official response is:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/internet_protocol_ipv4_address_a and
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/internet
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Paul Thornton wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://paritynews.com/network/item/325-department-of-work-and-pensions-uk-in-possession-of-169-million-unused-ipv4-addresses
>>
>> Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Mi
Well 172.0.0.0 to 172.15.255.255 is now owned by AT&T and they have
live systems on some of them already.
On 18 September 2012 17:39, George Herbert wrote:
>
> I'm having problems finding any announcements for this net 10/8, too. Can
> someone talk to these "IANA" folks about reclaiming it, too
Op 18 sep 2012, om 18:39 heeft George Herbert het volgende geschreven:
>
> I'm having problems finding any announcements for this net 10/8, too. Can
> someone talk to these "IANA" folks about reclaiming it, too? They have a
> bunch of other space in 172.x they should be able to use...
Don't
I'm having problems finding any announcements for this net 10/8, too. Can
someone talk to these "IANA" folks about reclaiming it, too? They have a bunch
of other space in 172.x they should be able to use...
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:36 AM, "John Levine
>John Graham-Cumming, who found this unused block, wrote in a blog post that
>the DWP was in possession of 51.0.0.0/8 IPv4 addresses.
Please, don't anyone tell him about 25/8.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Paul Thornton wrote:
>
> On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://paritynews.com/network/item/325-department-of-work-and-pensions-uk-in-possession-of-169-million-unused-ipv4-addresses
>>
>> Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9
On 18 Sep 2012, at 15:32, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>> Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4
>> Addresses
>
> "unused"? sez who? Oh, it said it on the internet so it must be true.
>
> Other than that, I'm totally fai
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 03:32:47PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4
> > Addresses
>
> "unused"? sez who? Oh, it said it on the internet so it must be true.
>
> Other than that,
On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4
> Addresses
"unused"? sez who? Oh, it said it on the internet so it must be true.
Other than that, I'm totally failing to see what's newsworthy about who or
what happens to ho
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
