202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

Wed Mar 9 18:24:37 UTC 2022

Also, Mr. Chen, if your intent is to give your CC recipients copies of our discussions on this board, please note that I for one will be deleting any additional emails you CC. I do not want to disclose to others what I say on this list. If they want to find out, let them use the online archive, like every other non subscriber.

None of this has anything to bear on your proposal’s technical merits, for which I have no opinion.

 -mel beckman

On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:19 AM, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:

 Alternatively, just use BCC. There is no reason for you to tell us who else you want to hear what you say. There’s nothing wrong with CCing, and nothing in the rules against it, but your recipients may not appreciate you distributing their email addresses on this list, to which they are not a member.

 -mel beckman

On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:29 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

Mr. Chen:

Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most inconsiderate.

In addition, I respectfully encourage you to trim the recipients to just the mailnig list and the specific individual to whom you are sending a reply.

Thanks,
Bill Herrin

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:19 AM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:
Mr. Chen:

Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most inconsiderate.

Thanks,
Bill Herrin

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:09 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com<mailto:aychen at avinta.com>> wrote:

Dear John:

1)    Thanks for your comment on how eMail headers could be used.

Dear Bill:

2)    I am glad that you agree that it should be a viable discussion on making use of the 240/4 netblock, while waiting for IPv6 to deliver its promises.

3)    As to your question about where does IPv6 stand today and where is it heading, I like to highlight a recent APNIC blog that you may have read. It also appeared on CircleID. After a long recount of the history, the author seems to hint that 1995 may be the new starting point for looking forward.

    https://blog.apnic.net/2022/02/21/another-year-of-the-transition-to-ipv6/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=apnic-blog-weekly-wrap_4

    https://circleid.com/posts/20220220-another-year-of-the-transition-to-ipv6

4)    We fully realize that the EzIP approach is quite unorthodox. As such, we received numerous quick criticisms in the past. With the proposal now put together, we do hope colleagues on this list will take the time to review its specifics. I look forward to comments and critiques on its merits.

Regards,

Abe (2022-03-09 12:08)

Message: 7
Date: 8 Mar 2022 15:32:36 -0500
From: "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com><mailto:johnl at iecc.com>
To: nanog at nanog.org<mailto: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: <20220308203237.53E7038B1B83 at ary.qy><mailto:20220308203237.53E7038B1B83 at ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

It appears that Anne Mitchell <amitchell at isipp.com><mailto:amitchell at isipp.com> said:

Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org><mailto:nanog at nanog.org>, Greg Skinner <gregskinner0 at icloud.com><mailto:gregskinner0 at icloud.com>, "Karandikar, Abhay" <Director at iitk.ac.in><mailto:Director at iitk.ac.in>, Rama Ati

<rama_ati at outlook.com><mailto:rama_ati at outlook.com>, Bob Corner GMAIL <bobbiecorner at gmail.com><mailto:bobbiecorner at gmail.com>, "Hsing, T. Russell" <tHsing at ieee.org><mailto:tHsing at ieee.org>, "Chen, Henry C.J."
<hcjchen at avinta.com><mailto:hcjchen at avinta.com>, ST Hsieh <uschinaeetc at gmail.com><mailto:uschinaeetc at gmail.com>, "Chen, Abraham Y." <AYChen at alum.mit.edu><mailto:AYChen at alum.mit.edu>

This is a whole lot of cc:s to people who aren't even part of this group/list.  One wonders with this many cc:s, how many bcc:s there also were, and to whom.

There are several thousand people on the NANOG list, and public web archives.  I don't think this
is a useful question.

FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea.  To be useful it would require
that every host on the Internet update its network stack, which would take on the order of
a decade, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or two.  It's basically
the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6.

R's,
John

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 13:11:58 -0800
From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us><mailto:bill at herrin.us>
To: John Levine <johnl at iecc.com><mailto:johnl at iecc.com>
Cc: "nanog at nanog.org"<mailto:nanog at nanog.org> <nanog at nanog.org><mailto: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:
        <CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=Vv0bqPg4+arw0pXhcQhh7rccrxVxEg at mail.gmail.com><mailto:CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=Vv0bqPg4+arw0pXhcQhh7rccrxVxEg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine <johnl at iecc.com><mailto:johnl at iecc.com> wrote:

FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea.  To be useful it would require
that every host on the Internet update its network stack,

Hi John,

That's incorrect and obviously so. While repurposing 240/4 as general
purpose Internet addresses might require that level of effort, other
uses such as local LAN addressing would only require the equipment on
that one lan to be updated -- a much more attainable goal.

Reallocating 240/4 as unpurposed unicast address space would allow
some standards-compliant uses to become practical before others. A few
quite quickly.

which would take on the order of
a decade, to free up some space that would likely be depleted in a year or two.  It's basically
the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6.

Is it not past time we admit that we have no real idea what the
schedule or level of effort will be for making IPv6 ubiquitous? This
year it was more than last year and next year it'll probably be more
than this year. The more precise predictions all seem to have fallen
flat.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>
https://bill.herrin.us/

------------------------------

[X]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>      Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>

--
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>
<https://bill.herrin.us/>
https://bill.herrin.us/

--
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>
<https://bill.herrin.us/>
https://bill.herrin.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220309/b3d1ea9a/attachment.html>