Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:21PM -0800, David Conrad a écrit :
> This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s temporary
> since the underlying problem (limited resource, unlimited demand) cannot be
> addressed.
>
I agree with this.
Yet I am in favor of changing the statu
Hi Denis,
It will only be burned through if RIR communities change policies to allow for
larger delegations than what is currently in place. I believe that some level
of change is possible whilst limiting the exhaustion rate, e.g. allowing for
delegations up to a maximum holding of a /22, howev
Hi David,
I agree with the fact that introducing this space has the very real risk of it
being obtained by the highest bidder. Perhaps I may be naive in believing that
we have a possible chance to delegate this space wisely and prevent it from
being exhausted at a rather rapid rate, however I c
Allocating 240/4 only temporarily drives down pricing until it's all assigned,
then we're all back at square one. Ya know what does not put us back square
one, nor waste our time? Implementing IPv6.
Ryan Hamel
From: NANOG on behalf of Christopher
Hawker
Sent:
If anyone has contacts at either I would appreciate it.
https://developer.amazon.com/support/amazonbot
Um, that is the site I mentioned in the line above the one you quoted.
As I said, I wrote to the contact address, no reply.
probably returned as a result of searching "amazonbot" on you
Dave -
You’d need to ask someone who speaks for the USG to address that question – and
that’s
definitely not my job.
However, I will observe in the time since then, the DoD has taken to
occasionally publicly
routing some of its address blocks, so the probability of inadvertent routing
impac
It appears that Patrick Clochesy said:
>Both robots respect robots.txt, of course they’re not going to answer.
The content farm is not one site with six billion pages, it's six billion
sites each with one page. They check the robots.txt for each site they
visit but by then its's too late.
Most
This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented your case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it and yet you persist. Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted effort had been put into that, instead. OwenOn Feb 13
That experiment already failed with the original v6 adoption process. It’s been
more than 20 years and all we have proven is that as long as people can have an
excuse to avoid v6 deployment, they will continue to do so.
Giving them another 20 years of excuses is a step against the collective go
NANOGers -
ARIN would like to remind the community about the ongoing consultation on
Resource Public Key Infrastructure/BGP intelligence. This consultation is
slated to close on Thursday, 29 February. Please be sure to submit your
comments to the arin-consult mailing list before then.
Read the
>
> 1. RIRs, following
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv4-rirs-2012-02-25-en,
> would request new /8s, and receive those allocations.
I don’t think this applies any more. I could be wrong, but I think based on
current practice, IANA would simply distribute 3 of the 16 /8s
On 2/14/24 9:30 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
That experiment already failed with the original v6 adoption process.
It’s been more than 20 years and all we have proven is that as long as
people can have an excuse to avoid v6 deployment, they will continue to
do so.
Giving them another 20 year
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted
> effort had been put into that, instead.
"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is
people's tendency to intuitively judge that a s
Christopher,
On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:49 AM, Christopher Hawker wrote:
> I agree with the fact that introducing this space has the very real risk of
> it being obtained by the highest bidder. Perhaps I may be naive in believing
> that we have a possible chance to delegate this space wisely and pre
john,
> Read the full text of the consultation at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-1/
please explain the need for bureaucrazy to do what RPKI CAs have been
doing since dirt was invented.
randy
On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
john,
Read the full text of the consultation at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-1/
please explain the need for bureaucrazy to do what RPKI CAs have been
doing since dirt was invented.
Randy -
I’d tend to
john:
> I’d tend to agree with you, but ARIN already once attempted to rollout
> such functionality – alas, with overly ambitious scope that not only
> provided increased visibility after potentially affected routes but
> functionality that also created default linkage to matching IRR
> objects
w
It appears that William Herrin said:
>On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted
>> effort had been put into that, instead.
>
>"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;
Well, OK
This seems more ideological and not overly appropriate for NANOG.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: Glen A. Pearce
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:54:59 -0600 (CST)
Sub
John,
If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the
discussion. Your remarks have been noted.
It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time wasn't
being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the deployment
of v6 within ne
mhammett> This seems more ideological and not overly appropriate for
mhammett> NANOG.
No, covid protocols are something that every conference that is serious
about inclusion should be *very* concerned with.
Saying that NANOG doesn't care about this says that NANOG can't be
bothered to make an eff
… The only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to
either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity completely.
This is a false dichotomy: those aren’t the only two options, nor the best two
options.
The best option is what is happening right n
None of the conversation was about COVID protocols.
Lowered in person attendance because of *individual concerns about health
risks* was mentioned. The conversation then went sideways into public
health policy and definitions, which absolutely doesn't belong on the list.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 7
>
> All we can do is educate people on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can
> not force people to adopt it.
>
At this stage of the game, networks and products that don't support V6
aren't likely to do so unless there is a forcing function to make them do
it. Meaning money.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024
On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
is solving the problem right now. Another solution isn’t needed.
Really? How many mail servers are up on
It appears that Stephen Satchell said:
>On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
>> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
>> is solving the problem right now. Another solution isn’t ne
> On 15 Feb 2024, at 13:25, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
>> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
>> is solving the problem right now. Anothe
27 matches
Mail list logo
