Re: Threads that never end (was: Waste will kill ipv6 too)
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 06:42:46AM -0800, Stephen Satchell said:
On 12/29/2017 09:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
the good thing about these long threads, which have ZERO new information, is having a KillThread command in one's mail user agent. get a life!
I no longer use KillThread. Instead, I sort my inbox by subject, and use the Delete key liberally. NANOG is by no means my first mailing list where religious wars have broken out. (*cough* Linux kernel list) :)
I used to gate mailing lists into cnews, and then just use tin with well-developed killfiles. Been a while though since I've touched a news system at all. (long live sizone.uucp! :) Unfortunately I haven't gotten mutt to the tin level (though collapsing threads makes reading the index easier..). (Ctrl-D to kill an entire thread in mutt btw.) Congrats on the record breaking thread! If anyone wants to TL;DR Im mildly interested in the results of this 'wisdom of the cloud' brainstorm. Certainly ipv6 is well solved by now. Happy Brave New ipv6 Year! /kc -- Ken Chase - uunet.ca!{ryelect,zeibmef,pci,jaywon,robohack}!sizone!math
I haven't even ... This thread's going to turn into another thread that never ends. On 30/12/2017 15:39, sizone!math wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 06:42:46AM -0800, Stephen Satchell said:
On 12/29/2017 09:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
the good thing about these long threads, which have ZERO new information, is having a KillThread command in one's mail user agent. get a life!
I no longer use KillThread. Instead, I sort my inbox by subject, and use the Delete key liberally. NANOG is by no means my first mailing list where religious wars have broken out. (*cough* Linux kernel list) :)
I used to gate mailing lists into cnews, and then just use tin with well-developed killfiles. Been a while though since I've touched a news system at all. (long live sizone.uucp! :) Unfortunately I haven't gotten mutt to the tin level (though collapsing threads makes reading the index easier..). (Ctrl-D to kill an entire thread in mutt btw.)
Congrats on the record breaking thread! If anyone wants to TL;DR Im mildly interested in the results of this 'wisdom of the cloud' brainstorm. Certainly ipv6 is well solved by now.
Happy Brave New ipv6 Year!
/kc -- Ken Chase - uunet.ca!{ryelect,zeibmef,pci,jaywon,robohack}!sizone!math
If anyone wants to TL;DR
moe: 2^128 is effectively infinita larry: we thought 2^32 was effectively infinite curly: we'll never need more than 640k thomas watson: i think there is a world market for maybe five computers
On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 13:36:32 +0900, Randy Bush said:
thomas watson: i think there is a world market for maybe five computers
"The Yale Book of Quotations quotes an I.B.M. source that this '... is a misunderstanding of remarks made at I.B.M.'s annual stockholders meeting on April 28, 1953. In referring specifically and only to the I.B.M. 701 Electronic Data Processing Machine ... Thomas Watson, Jr., told stockholders that 'I.B.M. had developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such a machine. As a result of our trip, on which we expected to get orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18.'" http://freakonomics.com/2008/04/17/our-daily-bleg-did-ibm-really-see-a-world...
Lets say the worst case scenario is that we exhaust IPv6 at a rate MASSIVELY higher than planned. Can't we all just do this again in like 80 years? I don't get why anyone cares so much that this thread won't die. Speaking of dying, I'll be dead by then anyway. Andrew On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
If anyone wants to TL;DR
moe: 2^128 is effectively infinita larry: we thought 2^32 was effectively infinite curly: we'll never need more than 640k thomas watson: i think there is a world market for maybe five computers
On January 1, 2018 at 22:09 trelane@trelane.net (Andrew Kirch) wrote:
Lets say the worst case scenario is that we exhaust IPv6 at a rate MASSIVELY higher than planned. Can't we all just do this again in like 80 years? I don't get why anyone cares so much that this thread won't die.
Speaking of dying, I'll be dead by then anyway.
One more time, the concern is not running out of ~2^128 addresses per se. The concern is running out of 128 bits due to segmentation and sparse allocations. A few bits for this (my unfounded example was handing the ITU a /8 for re-allocation as they see fit), a few bits for that, etc. Who was it who owned 2 x /8s of IPv4 space? AT&T? HP? Someone, I could look it up. What was the utilization of those blocks? And multicast, and 1914 space, and on and on. When one thinks of it like that, as chunks of the 128 bits, it doesn't look so vast, and it feels more vulnerable to politics, for example some nation demanding they act as their own RIR with a large allocation block, or just some clever new use, address blocks as cryptocurrency, address blocks with special, magical security policies, experimental uses, etc. Time, and howlings of pain should it come to that, will tell. At this point in time it's just dark speculation. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
I agree we all have a responsibility to hold the line on addresses being network identifiers and to some extent network locators (unfortunately). I agree we have a responsibility to sparsely and liberally allocate within reason (where /8 to ITU isn’t within reason, but a /12 might be, and even if we have every country that wanted one a /16 to play with, that’s not likely to hurt much). You’re absolutely right that if we get completely stupid beyond the bounds of current address planning we can waste IPv6 into oblivion. However, in a realistic discussion of whether it’s harmful or not to allocate /48s to residences and allocate /64s to point to point links, I don’t think there’s any valid argument that being stingy and putting /127s densely on point to point links with residences getting only a /60 each will somehow miraculously save us from any such actions. Part of the reason threads like this don’t die is because people get so focused on their (poorly expressed) ideology that they often are agreeing without realizing it. Owen
On Jan 2, 2018, at 10:37, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
On January 1, 2018 at 22:09 trelane@trelane.net (Andrew Kirch) wrote: Lets say the worst case scenario is that we exhaust IPv6 at a rate MASSIVELY higher than planned. Can't we all just do this again in like 80 years? I don't get why anyone cares so much that this thread won't die.
Speaking of dying, I'll be dead by then anyway.
One more time, the concern is not running out of ~2^128 addresses per se.
The concern is running out of 128 bits due to segmentation and sparse allocations. A few bits for this (my unfounded example was handing the ITU a /8 for re-allocation as they see fit), a few bits for that, etc.
Who was it who owned 2 x /8s of IPv4 space? AT&T? HP? Someone, I could look it up. What was the utilization of those blocks? And multicast, and 1914 space, and on and on.
When one thinks of it like that, as chunks of the 128 bits, it doesn't look so vast, and it feels more vulnerable to politics, for example some nation demanding they act as their own RIR with a large allocation block, or just some clever new use, address blocks as cryptocurrency, address blocks with special, magical security policies, experimental uses, etc.
Time, and howlings of pain should it come to that, will tell.
At this point in time it's just dark speculation.
-- -Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I agree we all have a responsibility to hold the line on addresses being network identifiers
Hi Owen, The delicious irony here is that EUI-64 supporting SLAAC is exactly that: an identifier. If we hold the line there, there is no line. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Huh? I’m saying they are network identifiers and not something else (like POP names, or geographical indexes, or inventory control numbers, or crypto currency or whatever else). So I’m not sure I understand your point here. Owen
On Jan 2, 2018, at 15:58 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: I agree we all have a responsibility to hold the line on addresses being network identifiers
Hi Owen,
The delicious irony here is that EUI-64 supporting SLAAC is exactly that: an identifier. If we hold the line there, there is no line.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com <mailto:herrin@dirtside.com> bill@herrin.us <mailto:bill@herrin.us> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/ <http://www.dirtside.com/>>
participants (8)
-
Andrew Kirch -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Large Hadron Collider -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
sizone!math -
valdis.kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin