202203090732.AYC Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
Abraham Y. Chen
aychen at avinta.com
Thu Mar 10 04:14:06 UTC 2022
Dear Mel & Bill:
0) Thank you for your kind advice.
1) To be honest, I am a bit of lost with multiple comments about my
eMail Header at the same time. Especially, some seem not in agreement
with the other. Rather than opening up a discussion thread, such as
"eMail Header Rules" that for sure will distract us from the real topic
on the table, I have sent a request to Valerie Wittkop (Program
Director) for a copy of the "official" rules for me to follow.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-09 23:13)
On 2022-03-09 14:23, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> On 2022-03-09 13:16, Mel Beckman 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> 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> 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://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
>>> 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 https://bill.herrin.us/
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> <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
>>> <https://bill.herrin.us/>
>>> https://bill.herrin.us/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> William Herrin
>>> bill at herrin.us
>>> <https://bill.herrin.us/>
>>> https://bill.herrin.us/
>
>
--
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/20220309/cf330c72/attachment.html>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list