Burn Rate? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

Sat Jan 13 18:15:46 UTC 2024

* aychen at avinta.com (Abraham Y. Chen) [Sat 13 Jan 2024, 18:16 CET]:
>0)    Your sender name is in an unusual format. It becomes just the 
>generic NANOG address as the recipient for me to MSG send to.

Your numbered lists are 0-indexed. So clever! Also, your MUA 
seems to understand Mail-Followup-To, which is nice.

>    Thanks for catching the typo. My understanding is that there is a 
>general desire (human nature) to get a larger netblock than 100.64/10 
>in CG-NAT. This could be used for either growing market or less 
>dynamic reassignment. The 240/4 can provide additional benefits to 

So nobody in particular is asking for this. Thanks for confirming.

>CG-NAT operations such as static addressing that no one has realized 
>possible. So, I am putting the solution on the table. This is a basic 
>process of sharing the new discoveries. Is there anything wrong with 
>the process? On the other hand, if RFC6598 had picked 240/4 instead of 
>100.64/10 as the netblock, we do not need today's discussions.

What's wrong with the process is that you're wasting the time of a lot 
of people on this mailing list with this crusade that has already 
veered into personal attacks such as when you questioned Randy Bush's 
experience. In that respect it would indeed have been better for 
RFC6598 to have picked 240/4 in the sense that it would have saved us 
94 out of the 104 mails currently in this thread and, unfortunately, 
counting.

	-- Niels.