Wow,, that's pretty heavy.. I understand and can appreciate
the passion
involved with this topic. But Ladies and gentlemen, please
lets keep it
civil ok.. In some way, shape or form we are all in this
together.. Some
may be less informed then others, or perhaps a difference in
opinion or
point of view as understood by the individual.. Please when
making
sarcastic/ or opinionated comments please consider all
parties
involved.. It in my impression this list is used for
intelligent,
collaboration, not flame wars over a touchy topic.. so
please try to
keep that in mind. ok. I do like the facility this forum
provides and
would like to keep it like that, it would be a sad day when
people (key
resources) drop off this list due to the over-whelming
feeling of being
(crapped on) because of the difference of vision or
opinion.. Pls. lets
try and keep it safe ok..
Apologies for the off topic comments, but I truly felt it
is/was
necessary..
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanogmerit.edu] On Behalf Of
Stephen Wilcox
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:21 AM
To: <michael.dillonbt.com>
Cc: nanogmerit.edu
Subject: Re: 240/4
On 18 Oct 2007, at 09:34, <michael.dillonbt.com>
<michael.dillonbt.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, this has descended to a point where we need
some fact
>> injection.
>
> You get a D on those facts because you did not review
the
> "literature",
> did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem
space, and did not
> investigate whether or not there were other versions of
the software
> that have been patched to support 240/4.
step awaaaay from the crack pipe...
Joe's facts were excellent. I read his email and thought
"wow, this
will kill this thread for sure"
why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff
together,
knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK
so, as using these IPs publically isnt feasible why bother
privately.
you may as well use RFC1918 or IPv6. the latter whilst not
without
issues is at least being rolled out as part of a series of
standards
that are 10+yrs old
i am really struggling with some of the logic being given
here. more
specifically the omissions in that logic are glaring.
> not attempt to engineer a solution that will work for
everybody
..
> not our reponsibility to fix every problem out there
..
> I believe that people are not that stupid.
..
> We do not have a good reason to deny them that
possibility.
..
> This is easy for vendors to fix.
..
> It is a trivial amount of work for the IETF to release
the address
> space
..
> removing the 240/4 blockages could also be considered a
trivial
> level of effort.
..
> those of us who do not want or need 240/4 addresses can
ignore it.
..
> The cost is effectively zero in the first case,
..
> why should anyone try and convert them to the one true
Internet
> architecture?
i think you are somewhat deluded.
Steve
|
