nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: bzs () theworld com
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 19:35:27 -0500
On November 18, 2021 at 11:15 cabo () tzi org (Carsten Bormann) wrote:
On 2021-11-18, at 00:29, Jay R. Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:This seems like a really bad ideaRight up there with the FUSSP.
They do have one thing in common which is people will immediately shoot down proposals because they would take TEN (pick a number) YEARS to make any difference. And they'll continue saying that for 20+ years every time it comes up absolutely certain each time that it's a showstopper. My take is people reflexively don't like change, they tend to not like others' solutions (the NIH reaction), and if they can get past those they certainly want only a solution which can be deployed in a very short period of time, likely to make a difference in a year or two if not sooner, at no "cost". Which is how we get things like yet another layer of encryption since they're invariably voluntary (DO/DON'T, WILL/WON'T designs, default DON'T), just cobbled into some existing protocol so can be deployed immediately at least by a handful of supporters w/o any disruption or urgency. At least those are failsafe, when almost no one adopts it who cares? (I realize there's no encryption involved here IT'S AN ANALOGY, a meta-observation, OK?)
https://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html Someone should write a page like that about the FUSIAS (final ultimate solution to the IPv4 address shortage) proposals. Grüße, Carsten
I don't believe this is being proposed as a final...etc, just: So long as we do have a shortage how might we at least not waste what we do have so history doesn't laugh at us. Let's engineer it to its inevitable depletion and not be even the tiniest bit guilty of having exacerbated the runout in the vain and futile hope that it might speed up IPv6 adoption. -- -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*
Current thread:
- RE: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- RE: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jerry Cloe (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Gaurav Kansal (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Mark Tinka (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public borg (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Mark Tinka (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Greg Skinner via NANOG (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Carsten Bormann (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public bzs (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Curran (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public jim deleskie (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Justin Keller (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Fred Baker (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 18)
- RE: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jerry Cloe (Nov 17)