nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election
From: Brielle <bruns () 2mbit com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 13:56:19 -0600
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 () netstyle io> 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 () nanog org> on behalf of Brielle <bruns () 2mbit com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 9:57 PM To: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election On 5/13/2020 12:42 PM, William Herrin wrote:Hi Brielle, http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html 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 http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
Current thread:
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election, (continued)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Owen DeLong (May 14)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Elad Cohen (May 14)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Owen DeLong (May 14)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Large Hadron Collider (May 13)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Brielle (May 13)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Valerie Wittkop (May 13)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Elad Cohen (May 13)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Baldur Norddahl (May 14)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Elad Cohen (May 14)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Dave Bell (May 14)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Brielle (May 13)
- Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Benson Schliesser via NANOG (May 13)
- RE: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Terrence Koeman (May 13)
- RE: RIPE NCC Executive Board election Terrence Koeman (May 13)