Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
I don’t see the difference between 6 and 7 usable addresses on all the /29s
in the world as actually making a significant impact on the usable lifespan of
IPv4.
Owen
This idea gets better each time I think about it. The changes and
support required would typic
I don’t see the difference between 6 and 7 usable addresses on all the /29s
in the world as actually making a significant impact on the usable lifespan of
IPv4.
Owen
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:33 , Dave Taht wrote:
>
> I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) first
> disc
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:03 , John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Joe Maimon said:
>> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up
>>> drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is
>> in use. It isn’t free.
>>
>> There
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:05 AM John R. Levine wrote:
..> The IETF is not the Network Police, and all IETF standards are entirely
> voluntary.
Yes, however the IETF standards can be an obstacle -- if they are, then
it is reasonable to adjust that which might impede a future useful development:
r
The proposals I've seen all seem to deliver minimal benefit for the massive
lift (technical, administrative, political, etc) involved to keep IPv4
alive a little longer.
Makes about as much sense as trying to destabilize US currency by
counterfeiting pennies.
Thank you
jms
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021
On Nov 18, 2021, at 9:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop squatting on
>> 240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4 that could possibly
>> be better used elsewhere by others who may choose to do so.
>
> The IETF is not th
John R. Levine wrote:
The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop
squatting on 240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4
that could possibly be better used elsewhere by others who may choose
to do so.
The IETF is not the Network Police, and all IETF standa
The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop squatting on
240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4 that could possibly
be better used elsewhere by others who may choose to do so.
The IETF is not the Network Police, and all IETF standards are entirely
voluntary
Dave Taht wrote:
I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) > first discussed here. > > Try this instead? > >
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-lowest-address/
> > >
in my mind, has the most promise for making the internet better in the
near
Mark Andrews wrote:
CIDR is much older than that and we still have to avoid .0 and .255
addresses in class C space.
I use .0 all the time.
Similarly for .0.0 and .255.255 for class B space and .0.0.0 and
.255.255.255 for class A space. Getting everybody you want to contact
and the path i
I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) first
discussed here.
Try this instead?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-lowest-address/
in my mind, has the most promise for making the internet better in the
nearer term.
Could I get y'all to put asi
On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 10:51 +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> The ask is to update every ip stack in the world (including
> validation,
> equipment retirement, reconfiguration, etc) and the gain is 4 weeks
> of
> extra ip address space in terms of estimated consumption.
(Not to mention the static 12
John Levine wrote on 18/11/2021 03:03:
The amount of work to change every computer in the world running
TCP/IP and every IP application to treat 240/4 as unicast (or to treat
some of 127/8) is not significantly less than the work to get them to
support IPv6. So it would roughly double the work, f
> On 18 Nov 2021, at 17:21, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Joe Maimon said:
>>
>>> For example
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 from 2008
>>> which fell prey to the "by the time this is usable IPv6 will have taken
>>> over"
John Levine wrote:
It appears that Joe Maimon said:
For example
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 from 2008
which fell prey to the "by the time this is usable IPv6 will have taken
over" groupthink.
Objectively wrong.
I will agree that your explanation of the r
It appears that Joe Maimon said:
>Mark Andrews wrote:
>> It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up
>> drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is
>in use. It isn’t free.
>
>There are so many things wrong with this statement that I am not even
>g
16 matches
Mail list logo
