IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Heads up

Ed Jankiewicz <edward.jankiewicz@sri.com> Tue, 09 November 2010 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.jankiewicz@sri.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3593A697E for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:03:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.145
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.900, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_26=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TttI89JFDTed for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:03:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.sri.com (newmail.SRI.COM [128.18.30.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACE23A6359 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:03:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_llMepgQ3Es16gFkAWFe3tw)"
Received: from [130.129.64.180] ([unknown] [130.129.64.180]) by mail.sri.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.05 32bit (built Jul 30 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0LBL00K0RSUEPG80@mail.sri.com> for v6ops@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:03:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <4CD8E447.3030804@sri.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:03:51 +0800
From: Ed Jankiewicz <edward.jankiewicz@sri.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <B7115C4E-7DA1-40A8-B728-F50E9A46494B@cisco.com> <54E900DC635DAB4DB7A6D799B3C4CD8E021DF8@PLSWM12A.ad.sprint.com>
In-reply-to: <54E900DC635DAB4DB7A6D799B3C4CD8E021DF8@PLSWM12A.ad.sprint.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Heads up
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:03:32 -0000

Cisco posted a sad/funny take on IPv4 exhaustion, including the quote 
"how ugly?  LORD OF THE FLIES UGLY!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYffYT2y-Iw&feature=share

we have crossed the threshold from "Nobody cares about IPv6" to "I don't 
care about anybody else, I'm saving myself"



On 11/9/2010 1:44 PM, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote:
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Fred Baker
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:30 AM
> Subject: [v6ops] Heads up
>
>> Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for a
> mechanism to>create what amounts to an>RFC 1918 prefix, but specifically
> for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a request to the ARIN
> board.>He will write a quick draft and post it this week, discuss this
> Thursday in the Ops WG, and call the question in>Friday's v6ops meeting.
> Due to the real time nature of the discussion, I'll ask folks to be aware
> and follow it.
>
> I don't understand why we're writing *another* draft about this. Others have
> mentioned the other drafts that are floating around (and being shot down),
> but here they are:
> http://zinfandel.levkowetz.com/html/draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space
> -02
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-05
>
> Use one of those, add any arguments that they have not already covered.
>
> However, I like others who have posted am very much against this idea.
> I have yet to see a good explanation as to why we should squander such a
> limited resource because multiple sets of 1918 space is hard to manage, and
> squatting on unannounced legacy space (DoD and others) so that you have a /8
> or two to play internally with is equal parts risky and evil. It's a bad
> situation, but this doesn't solve it.
>
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Ronald Bonica
>
>> BTW, the LISP WG is talking about asking for a prefix for a very similar
> reason.
>
> And I told *them* it was a bad idea too.
>
> Wes George
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email