Re: [v6ops] Heads up

[Ed Jankiewicz <[e-mail]>]

apologies if this attempt at injecting humor came off as flip or 
especially critical to the points of view - and in particular the reply 
to Wes George's post was inadvertent, I was not commenting on his post 
specifically.  In fact Wes makes a very important point - many proposals 
are on the table or were floated in the past, and it would be more 
efficient to start from the lessons already learned in those discussions 
to move forward.  New folks enter the fray and may not know that there 
is already a lot of history on the topic.

I understand this is a serious topics, and there are folks on both sides 
with legitimate concerns.  I hope we continue to move to solutions that 
do less harm, and don't devolve into petty arguments and ad hominem attacks.

FYI the video is way funnier than I am.

On 11/9/2010 2:03 PM, Ed Jankiewicz wrote:
> 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:[e-mail]  [mailto:[e-mail]] 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:[e-mail]  [mailto:[e-mail]] 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops