CC: s to Non List Members (Was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Re: 2022031711315.AYC

Thu Mar 17 17:22:10 UTC 2022

Hi, Tom:

1)    " ... it has serious deficiencies. ... ":    Could you please be 
specific? Branding something without qualifying information is 
unprofessional.

Regards,

Abe (2022-03-17 13:18)

------------------------------
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 19

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:28:36 -0400
From: Tom Beecher<beecher at beecher.cc>
To: Greg Skinner<gregskinner0 at icloud.com>
Cc:bzs at theworld.com,  "North American Network Operators' Group"
	<nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re:
	202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
Message-ID:
	<CAL9Qcx5v4Mko-kAdHpRx4KiRZ8e2ubQ-dV6GHg8djOYqxDUMuQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

No quibble about the discussion happening on a NOG list, not at all.

But frankly unless the proposal is even starting to move forward in the
IETF process such that a standards change is possible, it's just noise. ( I
don't predict that the draft being discussed ever gets that far anyways ;
it has serious deficiencies.)

On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 6:53 PM Greg Skinner via NANOG<nanog at nanog.org>
wrote:

> I agree.  iMO, this 240/4 issue is another one of those tussles in
> cyberspace
> <https://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf>.   But
> I don?t fault IETF people or anyone else who pursues technical solutions to
> these types of problems as long as they are open and honest about the
> limitations of these solutions.
>
> Also, IMO, the value of having a discussion about this issue here (and
> other NOG forums) is to get the perspective of people who (generally
> speaking) deal more immediately with the problems the broader ?online"
> population has with IETF-based technology.
>
> ?gregbo
>
> On Mar 8, 2022, at 9:25 PM,bzs at theworld.com  wrote:
>
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if the internet will survive the ipv6 adoption
> debates.
>
> Here's the real problem which you all can promptly ignore:
>
> The IETF et al are full of bright technical people who can design
> protocols, packet formats, etc.
>
> But many of the major problems facing the internet are not, at their
> core, engineering problems.
>
> They're in the realm of social, legal, marketing, politics, int'l
> policy, governance, law enforcement, commerce, economics, sociology,
> psychology, etc. which TBH as bright as many of the engineers et al
> are these problems are way beyond their ken, occasional polymath
> excepted.
>
> But first you have to admit you have a problem, and limitations.
>
> Shouting at the rafters about address space depletion etc while waving
> RFCs may not quite do it.
>
> Similar can be said about spam, malware attacks, phishing, etc.
>
> Yet another cryptographic protocol probably won't save the day but as
> the expression goes when all you have is a hammer the whole world
> looks like a nail.
>
> --
>         -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die    | bzs at 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*
>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220317/23417b45/attachment.html>