Re: 202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
Mr. Chen: Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most inconsiderate. In addition, I respectfully encourage you to trim the recipients to just the mailnig list and the specific individual to whom you are sending a reply. Thanks, Bill Herrin On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:19 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Mr. Chen:
Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most inconsiderate.
Thanks, Bill Herrin
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:09 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
Dear John:
1) Thanks for your comment on how eMail headers could be used.
Dear Bill:
2) I am glad that you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while waiting for IPv6 to deliver its promises.
3) As to your question about where does IPv6 stand today and where is it heading, I like to highlight a recent APNIC blog that you may have read. It also appeared on CircleID. After a long recount of the history, the author seems to hint that 1995 may be the new starting point for looking forward.
https://circleid.com/posts/20220220-another-year-of-the-transition-to-ipv6
4) We fully realize that the EzIP approach is quite unorthodox. As such, we received numerous quick criticisms in the past. With the proposal now put together, we do hope colleagues on this list will take the time to review its specifics. I look forward to comments and critiques on its merits.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-09 12:08)
Message: 7 Date: 8 Mar 2022 15:32:36 -0500 From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> <johnl@iecc.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Message-ID: <20220308203237.53E7038B1B83@ary.qy> <20220308203237.53E7038B1B83@ary.qy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
It appears that Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com> <amitchell@isipp.com> said:
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> <nanog@nanog.org>, Greg Skinner <gregskinner0@icloud.com> <gregskinner0@icloud.com>, "Karandikar, Abhay" <Director@iitk.ac.in> <Director@iitk.ac.in>, Rama Ati
<rama_ati@outlook.com> <rama_ati@outlook.com>, Bob Corner GMAIL <bobbiecorner@gmail.com> <bobbiecorner@gmail.com>, "Hsing, T. Russell" <tHsing@ieee.org> <tHsing@ieee.org>, "Chen, Henry C.J."<hcjchen@avinta.com> <hcjchen@avinta.com>, ST Hsieh <uschinaeetc@gmail.com> <uschinaeetc@gmail.com>, "Chen, Abraham Y." <AYChen@alum.mit.edu> <AYChen@alum.mit.edu>
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 there also were, and to whom.
There are several thousand people on the NANOG list, and public web archives. I don't think this is a useful question.
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, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or two. It's basically the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6.
R's, John
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 13:11:58 -0800 From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> <bill@herrin.us> To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> <nanog@nanog.org> <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Message-ID: <CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=Vv0bqPg4+arw0pXhcQhh7rccrxVxEg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=Vv0bqPg4+arw0pXhcQhh7rccrxVxEg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> <johnl@iecc.com> 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 purpose Internet addresses might require that level of effort, other uses such as local LAN addressing would only require the equipment on that one lan to be updated -- a much more attainable goal.
Reallocating 240/4 as unpurposed unicast address space would allow some standards-compliant uses to become practical before others. A few quite quickly.
which would take on the order of a decade, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or two. It's basically the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6.
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.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrinbill@herrin.ushttps://bill.herrin.us/
------------------------------
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> <#m_1889185439734392099_m_-9011500040057407468_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us <https://bill.herrin.us/> https://bill.herrin.us/
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us <https://bill.herrin.us/> https://bill.herrin.us/
Alternatively, just use BCC. There is no reason for you to tell us who else you want to hear what you say. There’s nothing wrong with CCing, and nothing in the rules against it, but your recipients may not appreciate you distributing their email addresses on this list, to which they are not a member. -mel beckman On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:29 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: Mr. Chen: Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most inconsiderate. In addition, I respectfully encourage you to trim the recipients to just the mailnig list and the specific individual to whom you are sending a reply. Thanks, Bill Herrin On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:19 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote: Mr. Chen: Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most inconsiderate. Thanks, Bill Herrin On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:09 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com<mailto:aychen@avinta.com>> wrote: Dear John: 1) Thanks for your comment on how eMail headers could be used. Dear Bill: 2) I am glad that you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while waiting for IPv6 to deliver its promises. 3) As to your question about where does IPv6 stand today and where is it heading, I like to highlight a recent APNIC blog that you may have read. It also appeared on CircleID. After a long recount of the history, the author seems to hint that 1995 may be the new starting point for looking forward. https://blog.apnic.net/2022/02/21/another-year-of-the-transition-to-ipv6/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=apnic-blog-weekly-wrap_4 https://circleid.com/posts/20220220-another-year-of-the-transition-to-ipv6 4) We fully realize that the EzIP approach is quite unorthodox. As such, we received numerous quick criticisms in the past. With the proposal now put together, we do hope colleagues on this list will take the time to review its specifics. I look forward to comments and critiques on its merits. Regards, Abe (2022-03-09 12:08) Message: 7 Date: 8 Mar 2022 15:32:36 -0500 From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com><mailto:johnl@iecc.com> To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Message-ID: <20220308203237.53E7038B1B83@ary.qy><mailto:20220308203237.53E7038B1B83@ary.qy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It appears that Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com><mailto:amitchell@isipp.com> said: Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org><mailto:nanog@nanog.org>, Greg Skinner <gregskinner0@icloud.com><mailto:gregskinner0@icloud.com>, "Karandikar, Abhay" <Director@iitk.ac.in><mailto:Director@iitk.ac.in>, Rama Ati <rama_ati@outlook.com><mailto:rama_ati@outlook.com>, Bob Corner GMAIL <bobbiecorner@gmail.com><mailto:bobbiecorner@gmail.com>, "Hsing, T. Russell" <tHsing@ieee.org><mailto:tHsing@ieee.org>, "Chen, Henry C.J." <hcjchen@avinta.com><mailto:hcjchen@avinta.com>, ST Hsieh <uschinaeetc@gmail.com><mailto:uschinaeetc@gmail.com>, "Chen, Abraham Y." <AYChen@alum.mit.edu><mailto:AYChen@alum.mit.edu> 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 there also were, and to whom. There are several thousand people on the NANOG list, and public web archives. I don't think this is a useful question. 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, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or two. It's basically the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6. R's, John ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 13:11:58 -0800 From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us><mailto:bill@herrin.us> To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com><mailto:johnl@iecc.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org"<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> <nanog@nanog.org><mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Message-ID: <CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=Vv0bqPg4+arw0pXhcQhh7rccrxVxEg@mail.gmail.com><mailto:CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=Vv0bqPg4+arw0pXhcQhh7rccrxVxEg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com><mailto:johnl@iecc.com> 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 purpose Internet addresses might require that level of effort, other uses such as local LAN addressing would only require the equipment on that one lan to be updated -- a much more attainable goal. Reallocating 240/4 as unpurposed unicast address space would allow some standards-compliant uses to become practical before others. A few quite quickly. which would take on the order of a decade, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or two. It's basically the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6. 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. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us> https://bill.herrin.us/ ------------------------------ [X]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us> <https://bill.herrin.us/> https://bill.herrin.us/ -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us> <https://bill.herrin.us/> https://bill.herrin.us/
Also, Mr. Chen, if your intent is to give your CC recipients copies of our discussions on this board, please note that I for one will be deleting any additional emails you CC. I do not want to disclose to others what I say on this list. If they want to find out, let them use the online archive, like every other non subscriber. None of this has anything to bear on your proposal’s technical merits, for which I have no opinion. -mel beckman On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:19 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote: Alternatively, just use BCC. There is no reason for you to tell us who else you want to hear what you say. There’s nothing wrong with CCing, and nothing in the rules against it, but your recipients may not appreciate you distributing their email addresses on this list, to which they are not a member. -mel beckman On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:29 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: Mr. Chen: Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most inconsiderate. In addition, I respectfully encourage you to trim the recipients to just the mailnig list and the specific individual to whom you are sending a reply. Thanks, Bill Herrin On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:19 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote: Mr. Chen: Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most inconsiderate. Thanks, Bill Herrin On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:09 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com<mailto:aychen@avinta.com>> wrote: Dear John: 1) Thanks for your comment on how eMail headers could be used. Dear Bill: 2) I am glad that you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while waiting for IPv6 to deliver its promises. 3) As to your question about where does IPv6 stand today and where is it heading, I like to highlight a recent APNIC blog that you may have read. It also appeared on CircleID. After a long recount of the history, the author seems to hint that 1995 may be the new starting point for looking forward. https://blog.apnic.net/2022/02/21/another-year-of-the-transition-to-ipv6/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=apnic-blog-weekly-wrap_4 https://circleid.com/posts/20220220-another-year-of-the-transition-to-ipv6 4) We fully realize that the EzIP approach is quite unorthodox. As such, we received numerous quick criticisms in the past. With the proposal now put together, we do hope colleagues on this list will take the time to review its specifics. I look forward to comments and critiques on its merits. Regards, Abe (2022-03-09 12:08) Message: 7 Date: 8 Mar 2022 15:32:36 -0500 From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com><mailto:johnl@iecc.com> To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Message-ID: <20220308203237.53E7038B1B83@ary.qy><mailto:20220308203237.53E7038B1B83@ary.qy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It appears that Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com><mailto:amitchell@isipp.com> said: Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org><mailto:nanog@nanog.org>, Greg Skinner <gregskinner0@icloud.com><mailto:gregskinner0@icloud.com>, "Karandikar, Abhay" <Director@iitk.ac.in><mailto:Director@iitk.ac.in>, Rama Ati <rama_ati@outlook.com><mailto:rama_ati@outlook.com>, Bob Corner GMAIL <bobbiecorner@gmail.com><mailto:bobbiecorner@gmail.com>, "Hsing, T. Russell" <tHsing@ieee.org><mailto:tHsing@ieee.org>, "Chen, Henry C.J." <hcjchen@avinta.com><mailto:hcjchen@avinta.com>, ST Hsieh <uschinaeetc@gmail.com><mailto:uschinaeetc@gmail.com>, "Chen, Abraham Y." <AYChen@alum.mit.edu><mailto:AYChen@alum.mit.edu> 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 there also were, and to whom. There are several thousand people on the NANOG list, and public web archives. I don't think this is a useful question. 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, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or two. It's basically the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6. R's, John ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 13:11:58 -0800 From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us><mailto:bill@herrin.us> To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com><mailto:johnl@iecc.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org"<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> <nanog@nanog.org><mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Message-ID: <CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=Vv0bqPg4+arw0pXhcQhh7rccrxVxEg@mail.gmail.com><mailto:CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=Vv0bqPg4+arw0pXhcQhh7rccrxVxEg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com><mailto:johnl@iecc.com> 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 purpose Internet addresses might require that level of effort, other uses such as local LAN addressing would only require the equipment on that one lan to be updated -- a much more attainable goal. Reallocating 240/4 as unpurposed unicast address space would allow some standards-compliant uses to become practical before others. A few quite quickly. which would take on the order of a decade, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or two. It's basically the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6. 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. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us> https://bill.herrin.us/ ------------------------------ [X]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us> <https://bill.herrin.us/> https://bill.herrin.us/ -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us> <https://bill.herrin.us/> https://bill.herrin.us/
participants (2)
-
Mel Beckman -
William Herrin