nanog mailing list archives
Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC
From: Greg Skinner via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 12:40:47 -0700
I was referring to the relative number of responses to the most recent Schoen IPv4 maintenance draft at the link you gave (quoted by me), as compared to the responses here on the NANOG list. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I would argue that Schoen and the co-authors of that draft have spent time researching the problem and past discussions. For example, see the discussion on the internet-history list about the history of 0/8 <https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-February/004862.html>. —gregbo
On Mar 20, 2022, at 11:26 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote: I wouldn’t assume that the small number of responses indicates a lack of interest. It’s possible that people haven’t commented because they’ve seen this topic play itself out over the years, and although they have opinions, they don’t feel compelled to post them there. (Interestingly enough, some have posted them here.) Another possibility is that they’re waiting until the draft is presented later this week before expressing their opinions. There are quite a few responses. All expressed zero interest. This is a pretty common pattern. Someone comes up with an idea, spends zero time researching the history of the problem or previous discussions,and submits it to the IETF. People point out that it's been discussed before,and they aren't interested,but the submitter stamps their feet because nobody is LISTENING to them. On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 1:14 PM Greg Skinner via NANOG <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>> wrote:On Mar 15, 2022, at 7:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org <mailto:marka () isc org>> wrote: Firstly nobody uses mailing list digests as references. Secondly anyone can post to the mailing list, you just need to subscribe. If you read the thread you can see there is no interest in this. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/iZnR1Dkomu4D8AfHTI2xR_npJ8Y/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/iZnR1Dkomu4D8AfHTI2xR_npJ8Y/>I wouldn’t assume that the small number of responses indicates a lack of interest. It’s possible that people haven’t commented because they’ve seen this topic play itself out over the years, and although they have opinions, they don’t feel compelled to post them there. (Interestingly enough, some have posted them here.) Another possibility is that they’re waiting until the draft is presented later this week before expressing their opinions. —gregbo
Current thread:
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203141407.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 14)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203141407.AYC Tom Beecher (Mar 14)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 15)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Mark Andrews (Mar 15)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Greg Skinner via NANOG (Mar 20)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Tom Beecher (Mar 20)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Greg Skinner via NANOG (Mar 20)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 15)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203141407.AYC Tom Beecher (Mar 14)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC John Levine (Mar 20)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Joe Maimon (Mar 21)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Randy Bush (Mar 21)