From jondrews at fastmail.com  Sat Nov  6 10:30:46 2021
From: jondrews at fastmail.com (Jonathan Drews)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2021 08:30:46 -0600
Subject: [talk] Novembers SEMI-Bug Presentation
Message-ID: <YYaRlupJ530LWXiL@leo.easyfashionclothing.com>

Hello Folks:

 Semi-BUG's presentation for November 16th will feature Deb Goodkin,
the head of the FreeBSD foundation. She will talk to us about
resources for installing and running FreeBSD as well as the mission
of the FreeBSD Foundation.

 Deb is an accomplished programmer who has a BS in Computer
Engineering as well as a Masters in Electrical Engineering. Prior to
joining the FreeBSD Foundation she worked as a firmware engineer at
IBM and Conner Peripherals, and as an Applications Engineer for
Maxtor Corporation. Deb is currently experimenting with FreeBSD 13
on her personal computer to learn more about FreeBSD systems
administration. You can read an interview with her here:

"Our whole mission is to support the FreeBSD project and the
community"
https://tinyurl.com/582wbspb

The presentation will be on November 16th, at 1900 hours Detroit, MI
time. I will email the Jitsi link a day before.

Southeast Michigan BSD User Group: http://www.semibug.org/

--
Kind regards,

Jonathan



From ike at blackskyresearch.net  Fri Nov 19 14:13:25 2021
From: ike at blackskyresearch.net (Isaac (.ike) Levy)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:13:25 -0500
Subject: [talk] Whaaaaa? Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8
Message-ID: <56cedb14-b8bc-4268-9c92-f75af1b489fa@www.fastmail.com>

Hi All,

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html

"This document provides history and rationale to reduce the size of the IPv4 local loopback network ("localnet") from /8 to /16, freeing up over 16 million IPv4 addresses for other possible uses."

Not policy, only a draft- sky is not falling here, but...

I can't say I see anything good coming from this because: 16m IPv4 address is a drop in the bucket, and the crazy work that will ensue patching new gaping security holes and other network hyjinks distract from more support and adoption of IPv6...

Thoughts?

Happy Turkey Day all!

Best,
.ike



From njt at ayvali.org  Fri Nov 19 14:33:34 2021
From: njt at ayvali.org (N.J. Thomas)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:33:34 -0800
Subject: [talk] Whaaaaa? Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8
In-Reply-To: <56cedb14-b8bc-4268-9c92-f75af1b489fa@www.fastmail.com>
References: <56cedb14-b8bc-4268-9c92-f75af1b489fa@www.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <YZf8DpWuo2kSa9xq@ayvali.org>

* Isaac (.ike) Levy <ike at blackskyresearch.net> [2021-11-19 14:13:25-0500]:
> "This document provides history and rationale to reduce the size of
> the IPv4 local loopback network ("localnet") from /8 to /16, freeing
> up over 16 million IPv4 addresses for other possible uses."

Years ago, before v4 exhaustion, similar calls were made made to request
organizations like MIT to give up their /8 IP allocations and the
standard response from all the network engineers was that it would only
delay the inevitable for a few months at most.

The IPv4 pool was completely exhausted a few years ago, so even if this
proposal would be accepted (I strongly doubt it would be), it would be a
small band-aid applied to a gushing wound.

(MIT did eventually sell off a large chunk of their /8 a few years ago
for lots of $$$. They probably should have waited, it's worth a lot more
now.)

As much as I am annoyed with IPv6 (lack of backwards compatibility being
its biggest wart), it is the way to go; any other attempts such as this
draft, and you're only complicating matters. We now have NAT, CGNAT
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT) and the amazing STUN:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN

to fix the problems we created trying to fix the problem. =-)

As expected, this proposal is being excoriated on NANOG, so I'll leave
it to you fine folks to look up that discussion. I'll just quote the
inimitable John Levine on the subject:

    The amount of work to change every computer in the world running
    TCP/IP and every IP application to treat 240/4 as unicast (or to
    treat some of 127/8) is not significantly less than the work to get
    them to support IPv6. So it would roughly double the work, for a 2%
    increase in the address space, or for 127/8 less than 1%.  The code
    for IPv6 is already written, after all.

    Also, while the world has run out of free IPv4 address space, there
    is plenty of IPv4 if you are willing to pay for it. A 2% increase in
    v4 addresses would not change that.

Thomas



From ike at blackskyresearch.net  Fri Nov 19 14:51:03 2021
From: ike at blackskyresearch.net (Isaac (.ike) Levy)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:51:03 -0500
Subject: [talk] Whaaaaa? Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8
In-Reply-To: <YZf8DpWuo2kSa9xq@ayvali.org>
References: <56cedb14-b8bc-4268-9c92-f75af1b489fa@www.fastmail.com>
 <YZf8DpWuo2kSa9xq@ayvali.org>
Message-ID: <6f249ce3-7731-4337-887a-121cd1fa2c25@www.fastmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021, at 2:33 PM, N.J. Thomas wrote:
> * Isaac (.ike) Levy <ike at blackskyresearch.net> [2021-11-19 14:13:25-0500]:
>> "This document provides history and rationale to reduce the size of
>> the IPv4 local loopback network ("localnet") from /8 to /16, freeing
>> up over 16 million IPv4 addresses for other possible uses."
>
> Years ago, before v4 exhaustion, similar calls were made made to request
> organizations like MIT to give up their /8 IP allocations and the
> standard response from all the network engineers was that it would only
> delay the inevitable for a few months at most.
>
> The IPv4 pool was completely exhausted a few years ago, so even if this
> proposal would be accepted (I strongly doubt it would be), it would be a
> small band-aid applied to a gushing wound.
>
> (MIT did eventually sell off a large chunk of their /8 a few years ago
> for lots of $$$. They probably should have waited, it's worth a lot more
> now.)
>
> As much as I am annoyed with IPv6 (lack of backwards compatibility being
> its biggest wart), it is the way to go; any other attempts such as this
> draft, and you're only complicating matters. We now have NAT, CGNAT
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT) and the amazing STUN:
>
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN
>
> to fix the problems we created trying to fix the problem. =-)
>
> As expected, this proposal is being excoriated on NANOG, so I'll leave
> it to you fine folks to look up that discussion. I'll just quote the
> inimitable John Levine on the subject:
>
>     The amount of work to change every computer in the world running
>     TCP/IP and every IP application to treat 240/4 as unicast (or to
>     treat some of 127/8) is not significantly less than the work to get
>     them to support IPv6. So it would roughly double the work, for a 2%
>     increase in the address space, or for 127/8 less than 1%.  The code
>     for IPv6 is already written, after all.
>
>     Also, while the world has run out of free IPv4 address space, there
>     is plenty of IPv4 if you are willing to pay for it. A 2% increase in
>     v4 addresses would not change that.
>
> Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at lists.nycbug.org
> http://lists.nycbug.org:8080/mailman/listinfo/talk

I'm delighted that your stats reinforce my knee-jerk reaction to this draft.

Best,
.ike