Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election
I haven’t changed my mind, Elad. However understanding more of the background on why people have tried to look at it in the past and why it didn’t happen is important. Bills example, while it shows it is possible, runs into major issues we already deal with that have been around since the 90s. The implementation effort wouldn’t make sense these days. Funny how people who are recognized as being knowledgeable and experienced in the community are taken much more seriously, isn’t it? Sent from my iPhone
On May 13, 2020, at 1:11 PM, Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> wrote: LOL funny seeing you changing your mind by 180 degrees when someone you know in the community writing to you the exact same thing.
Grow a backbone please. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Brielle <bruns@2mbit.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 9:57 PM To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election
On 5/13/2020 12:42 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Hi Brielle,
http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html
Someone said much as you did way back in 2007. It bugged me, this defeatism that said there was no way IPv4 could have been incrementally updated to support more addresses, that a greenfield protocol was the only path forward. So I designed an upgrade factoring in the need for pre- and post-upgrade stacks and networks to interoperate over a period of years. It took all of 4 printed pages.
It's clear IPv6 is the path forward. It was clear in 2007. But don't for a second believe that's because IPv4 could not have been upgraded in place. That's a failure of imagination.
Interesting, thank you for the insight and some detailed breakdown. I'm actually really glad someone with some more experience jumped in with some actual background in this effort.
One thing that cropped up in my mind from the late 90s and AFAIK still goes on today - isn't it pretty well documented that more then a small number of 'professional' firewalls have a habit of just outright discarding/rejecting/barfing on packets with options in them that they don't recognize?
IE: PMTU/ECN blackhole redux.
Of course since IPx1 requires some stack upgrades, so that point is moot really.
Sigh. Back to the original thought that its just easier to go IPv6 then try to 'fix' whats already out there.
-- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
Sorry for any rejections coming from my mail server currently for list traffic! Something seems to have pissed off rspamd on my end and its suddenly marking everything from the list as spam... Though it only seems to be doing it for this thread. On 5/13/2020 1:56 PM, Brielle wrote:
I haven’t changed my mind, Elad.
However understanding more of the background on why people have tried to look at it in the past and why it didn’t happen is important.
Bills example, while it shows it is possible, runs into major issues we already deal with that have been around since the 90s. The implementation effort wouldn’t make sense these days.
Funny how people who are recognized as being knowledgeable and experienced in the community are taken much more seriously, isn’t it?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 13, 2020, at 1:11 PM, Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> wrote:
LOL funny seeing you changing your mind by 180 degrees when someone you know in the community writing to you the exact same thing.
Grow a backbone please. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Brielle <bruns@2mbit.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 9:57 PM *To:* NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> *Subject:* Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election On 5/13/2020 12:42 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Hi Brielle,
http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html
Someone said much as you did way back in 2007. It bugged me, this defeatism that said there was no way IPv4 could have been incrementally updated to support more addresses, that a greenfield protocol was the only path forward. So I designed an upgrade factoring in the need for pre- and post-upgrade stacks and networks to interoperate over a period of years. It took all of 4 printed pages.
It's clear IPv6 is the path forward. It was clear in 2007. But don't for a second believe that's because IPv4 could not have been upgraded in place. That's a failure of imagination.
Interesting, thank you for the insight and some detailed breakdown. I'm actually really glad someone with some more experience jumped in with some actual background in this effort.
One thing that cropped up in my mind from the late 90s and AFAIK still goes on today - isn't it pretty well documented that more then a small number of 'professional' firewalls have a habit of just outright discarding/rejecting/barfing on packets with options in them that they don't recognize?
IE: PMTU/ECN blackhole redux.
Of course since IPx1 requires some stack upgrades, so that point is moot really.
Sigh. Back to the original thought that its just easier to go IPv6 then try to 'fix' whats already out there.
-- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
-- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
To many (or most) of the people participating in this thread - I enjoy watching flame wars as much - perhaps more - than the next person... But please keep in mind the NANOG mailing list guidelines at https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ as well as the Code of Conduct that's included by reference at https://www.nanog.org/about/code-conduct/. Clearly, there are multiple NANOG mailing list guidelines that are being violated by people in this thread. I encourage all of you to read the guidelines and evaluate each message carefully before sending it. I'd especially like to draw your attention to one guideline in particular: #2 - Posts should be thoughtfully crafted for an audience of more than 10,000 Internet-networking engineers, operators, and architects in our community. Even if I am insanely generous in how I characterize the technical and operational value of these messages, it's pretty clear that many of them don't pass this particular test. So, please up your game. Otherwise, you're wasting the time of thousands of people. And you're creating more work for NANOG staff - they will have to issue warnings, place people into moderation queues, etc. It's just a pain in the ass for everybody involved, so don't do it. Thanks, - Benson (I am a NANOG Board Member, but I am sending this message only in my personal capacity at this time.)
participants (2)
-
Benson Schliesser -
Brielle