RIPE NCC Executive Board election

Brielle bruns at
Wed May 13 19:56:19 UTC 2020

I haven’t changed my mind, Elad.  

However understanding more of the background on why people have tried to look at it in the past and why it didn’t happen is important.

Bills example, while it shows it is possible, runs into major issues we already deal with that have been around since the 90s.  The implementation effort wouldn’t make sense these days.

Funny how people who are recognized as being knowledgeable and experienced in the community are taken much more seriously, isn’t it?

Sent from my iPhone

>> On May 13, 2020, at 1:11 PM, Elad Cohen <elad at> wrote:
> LOL funny seeing you changing your mind by 180 degrees when someone you know in the community writing to you the exact same thing.
> Grow a backbone please.
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at> on behalf of Brielle <bruns at>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 9:57 PM
> To: NANOG list <nanog at>
> Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election
> On 5/13/2020 12:42 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > Hi Brielle,
> > 
> >
> > 
> > Someone said much as you did way back in 2007. It bugged me, this
> > defeatism that said there was no way IPv4 could have been
> > incrementally updated to support more addresses, that a greenfield
> > protocol was the only path forward. So I designed an upgrade factoring
> > in the need for pre- and post-upgrade stacks and networks to
> > interoperate over a period of years. It took all of 4 printed pages.
> > 
> > It's clear IPv6 is the path forward. It was clear in 2007. But don't
> > for a second believe that's because IPv4 could not have been upgraded
> > in place. That's a failure of imagination.
> Interesting, thank you for the insight and some detailed breakdown.  I'm 
> actually really glad someone with some more experience jumped in with 
> some actual background in this effort.
> One thing that cropped up in my mind from the late 90s and AFAIK still 
> goes on today - isn't it pretty well documented that more then a small 
> number of 'professional' firewalls have a habit of just outright 
> discarding/rejecting/barfing on packets with options in them that they 
> don't recognize?
> IE: PMTU/ECN blackhole redux.
> Of course since IPx1 requires some stack upgrades, so that point is moot 
> really.
> Sigh.  Back to the original thought that its just easier to go IPv6 then 
> try to 'fix' whats already out there.
> -- 
> Brielle Bruns
> The Summit Open Source Development Group
>    /
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list