Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks)

[JC Dill <nanog () vo cnchost com>]

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:44:11PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
>
> > Charles Sprickman wrote:
> >
> > > Seriously though, somewhere there is a popular site that is non-profit in
> > > nature that would trade say a month of free access for the hassle of being
> > > put into a widely-blocked block.
> >
> > The suggestion of putting Yahoo or Google on a 69/8 IP led me to this 
> > idea:
> >
> > Google could put their *beta* sites on a 69/8 IP, without causing them 
> > (Google) much Internet reachability/connectivity harm, and benefiting 
> > the Internet at large considerably.
>
> (Note to Mr. Dill, this is not intended to pick on you specifically, 
> it's just a convenient place to butt in)


Ahem.  It's _MS._ Dill, thank you.

Maybe next time you will stop and think "will this make me look like a 
sexist idiot in front of engineers across the entire planet"? before 
posting to a mailing list.  (If the shoe fits, wear it.)

> JESUS H CHRIST ENOUGH ALREADY... Please stop with the hairbrained ideas to 
> put random things in 69/8 space. These goals are mutually exclusive. You
> can't put important stuff on broken IPs, and you can't fix broken IPs by
> putting unimportant stuff on them. 

Sure you can.  You just need content unimportant enough that no one (the 
end users on a network that is still blocking 69/8, AND the networks 
that put up the sacrificial target host on a 69/8 IP) is truly hurt if 
the connection fails, but important enough that the failure will lead to 
the broken networks being fixed and clue being distributed.

> no one who is still
> running outdated filters is going to notice it because they can't reach 
> Google beta sites.

I'm suggesting that Google explain why they are doing this on a page 
linked off their homepage.  If this is done, people ARE going to notice, 
and ARE going to find out why.  When it is widely publicised, it WILL be 
noticed even more.

> These are not just bad ideas, they are STUPID ideas. 

Where is your bright suggestion?

> Listen, I have space in 69/8, and it is NOT an epidemic.

So how are you solving your 69/8 filtering/connectivity problems?

> Back when 64/8 
> was opened up it destroyed a beautiful 64/3 filter on unallocated space, 
> and yet somehow we all made it through just fine. The people who are 
> stupid enough to filter IPs without a plan on keeping those filters up to 
> date deserve their connectivity problems. 

OK, I'm confused.  I thought that the connectivity problem was, by and 
large, endured by the 69/8 IP users, and not on the networks with 
out-of-date bogon filters.  Please elaborate on how this problem is 
really a connectivity problem for the networks with the bad filters, and 
how they are experiencing and then fixing this problem.  Because from 
all reports here, it's obvious to ME that these networks are totally 
unaware of the issue because it is NOT creating a problem for them!

jc

p.s.  Please don't cc me on replies, or on replies to replies, etc.  I 
get the list email just fine and I don't need more than one copy of any 
given email.  Really.