Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 6 Nov 02:57 2010

Updated agenda for the OPSAREA open meeting

An updated agenda for the OPSAREA open meeting is available at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/agenda/opsarea.txt

Dan
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 8 Nov 02:06 2010

Volunteers for notes and jabber for the OPSAREA meeting

We need volunteers for taking notes and jabber connectivity in the
OPSAREA meeting tomorrow. Also, if somebody has Skype on his machine to
help us connect with Ron Bonica who is participating remotely, this
would also be very useful. Please help. Beers available!

Thanks and Regards,

Dan
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 8 Nov 03:26 2010

OPS Area open hours - Tuesday in room Rose

The room allocated for OPS Area open hours is room Rose, and the time is
1520 to 1700 ohm Tuesday. All OPS area participants are invited to come
and discuss future work and status of work in OPS, and any other IETF
related business. 

Regards,

Dan
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 8 Nov 06:51 2010

OPS Area Open Meeting - updated agenda and presentations needed in advance!

An updated agenda for the OPS Open Area Meeting tomorrow is available at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/agenda/opsarea.txt. 

Presenters are kindly asked to send the presentations in advance so that
they can be loaded on the meeting site and be available for the remote
participants at the time the meeting starts. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan
Fred Baker | 9 Nov 03:29 2010
Picon

Heads up

Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for a mechanism to create what amounts to
an RFC 1918 prefix, but specifically for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a request to the
ARIN board. He will write a quick draft and post it this week, discuss this Thursday in the Ops WG, and call
the question in Friday's v6ops meeting. Due to the real time nature of the discussion, I'll ask folks to be
aware and follow it.
Marshall Eubanks | 9 Nov 04:58 2010
Picon

Re: Heads up

what size prefix ? A /8 ? /16 ?

On Nov 8, 2010, at 9:29 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for a mechanism to create what amounts to
an RFC 1918 prefix, but specifically for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a request to the
ARIN board. He will write a quick draft and post it this week, discuss this Thursday in the Ops WG, and call
the question in Friday's v6ops meeting. Due to the real time nature of the discussion, I'll ask folks to be
aware and follow it.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@...
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

Regards
Marshall
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

Randy Bush | 9 Nov 05:01 2010

Re: Heads up

> Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for
> a mechanism to create what amounts to an RFC 1918 prefix, but
> specifically for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a
> request to the ARIN board. He will write a quick draft and post it
> this week, discuss this Thursday in the Ops WG, and call the question
> in Friday's v6ops meeting. Due to the real time nature of the
> discussion, I'll ask folks to be aware and follow it.

i have been fighting against this wrong-headed proposal for a couple of
years, since they first tried it in apnic, from which we sent them to
ietf.

it is a hack which perpetuates their kludge and does not help ipv6 one
little bit.  

they made the current mess and this just delays the inevitable and
they'll want some other silliness to bail them out next time.

the space will be immediately be used by others, and thus will defeat
the alleged purpose of giving them private space with which to stitch
together 1918 customers.

it will cement in and perpetuate the n-level ipv4 nat model.

randy
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

(Continue reading)

Joel Jaeggli | 9 Nov 05:07 2010

Re: Heads up

On 11/9/10 12:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for
>> a mechanism to create what amounts to an RFC 1918 prefix, but
>> specifically for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a
>> request to the ARIN board. He will write a quick draft and post it
>> this week, discuss this Thursday in the Ops WG, and call the question
>> in Friday's v6ops meeting. Due to the real time nature of the
>> discussion, I'll ask folks to be aware and follow it.
> 
> i have been fighting against this wrong-headed proposal for a couple of
> years, since they first tried it in apnic, from which we sent them to
> ietf.
> 
> it is a hack which perpetuates their kludge and does not help ipv6 one
> little bit.  
> 
> they made the current mess and this just delays the inevitable and
> they'll want some other silliness to bail them out next time.
> 
> the space will be immediately be used by others, and thus will defeat
> the alleged purpose of giving them private space with which to stitch
> together 1918 customers.
> 
> it will cement in and perpetuate the n-level ipv4 nat model.

to be clear, without this space, the people who think nat444 is a good
idea will do it anyway using either their existing space or rfc1918
space. the conditions where it actually helps (e.g. by reducing the
likelyhood of collision are) at the margins.

(Continue reading)

David Conrad | 9 Nov 05:09 2010

Re: Heads up

I'm confused, but that may be because of lack of information.

Ignoring for the time being the advisability of doing this, if we're talking about a new pseudo-RFC 1918
block, why is it going to a regional registry?  Presumably its use would be global.  Shouldn't it be a direct
allocation by IANA as a result of IETF action?

Regards,
-drc

On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

>> Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for
>> a mechanism to create what amounts to an RFC 1918 prefix, but
>> specifically for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a
>> request to the ARIN board. He will write a quick draft and post it
>> this week, discuss this Thursday in the Ops WG, and call the question
>> in Friday's v6ops meeting. Due to the real time nature of the
>> discussion, I'll ask folks to be aware and follow it.
> 
> i have been fighting against this wrong-headed proposal for a couple of
> years, since they first tried it in apnic, from which we sent them to
> ietf.
> 
> it is a hack which perpetuates their kludge and does not help ipv6 one
> little bit.  
> 
> they made the current mess and this just delays the inevitable and
> they'll want some other silliness to bail them out next time.
> 
> the space will be immediately be used by others, and thus will defeat
(Continue reading)

Brian E Carpenter | 9 Nov 05:21 2010
Picon

Re: Heads up

Dave,

On 2010-11-09 17:09, David Conrad wrote:
> I'm confused, but that may be because of lack of information.
> 
> Ignoring for the time being the advisability of doing this, if we're talking about a new pseudo-RFC 1918
block, why is it going to a regional registry?  Presumably its use would be global.  Shouldn't it be a direct
allocation by IANA as a result of IETF action?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_run

    Brian

> Regards,
> -drc
> 
> On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
>>> Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for
>>> a mechanism to create what amounts to an RFC 1918 prefix, but
>>> specifically for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a
>>> request to the ARIN board. He will write a quick draft and post it
>>> this week, discuss this Thursday in the Ops WG, and call the question
>>> in Friday's v6ops meeting. Due to the real time nature of the
>>> discussion, I'll ask folks to be aware and follow it.
>> i have been fighting against this wrong-headed proposal for a couple of
>> years, since they first tried it in apnic, from which we sent them to
>> ietf.
>>
>> it is a hack which perpetuates their kludge and does not help ipv6 one
(Continue reading)


Gmane