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

[Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>]

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 () 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 () 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 () herrin us<mailto:bill () 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 () avinta com<mailto:aychen () 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 () iecc com><mailto:johnl () iecc com>
To: nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () 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 () ary qy><mailto:20220308203237.53E7038B1B83 () ary qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

It appears that Anne Mitchell <amitchell () isipp com><mailto:amitchell () isipp com> said:


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


<rama_ati () outlook com><mailto:rama_ati () outlook com>, Bob Corner GMAIL <bobbiecorner () gmail 
com><mailto:bobbiecorner () gmail com>, "Hsing, T. Russell" <tHsing () ieee org><mailto:tHsing () ieee org>, "Chen, 
Henry C.J."
<hcjchen () avinta com><mailto:hcjchen () avinta com>, ST Hsieh <uschinaeetc () gmail com><mailto:uschinaeetc () gmail 
com>, "Chen, Abraham Y." <AYChen () alum mit edu><mailto:AYChen () 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 () herrin us><mailto:bill () herrin us>
To: John Levine <johnl () iecc com><mailto:johnl () iecc com>
Cc: "nanog () nanog org"<mailto:nanog () nanog org> <nanog () nanog org><mailto:nanog () 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 () mail gmail 
com><mailto:CAP-guGVCXC_8H+wgriM=Vv0bqPg4+arw0pXhcQhh7rccrxVxEg () mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine <johnl () iecc com><mailto:johnl () 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 () herrin us<mailto:bill () 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 () herrin us<mailto:bill () herrin us>
<https://bill.herrin.us/>
https://bill.herrin.us/


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