Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Charles Sprickman wrote:
Seriously though, somewhere there is a popular site that is non-profit in
nature that would trade say a month of free access for the hassle of being
put into a widely-blocked block.
The suggestion of putting Yahoo or Google on a 69/8 IP led me to this idea:
Google could put their *beta* sites on a 69/8 IP, without causing them (Google) much Internet reachability/connectivity harm, and benefiting the Internet at large considerably.
(Note to Mr. Dill, this is not intended to pick on you specifically, it's just a convenient place to butt in)
Ahem. It's _MS._ Dill, thank you.
Maybe next time you will stop and think "will this make me look like a sexist idiot in front of engineers across the entire planet"? before posting to a mailing list. (If the shoe fits, wear it.)
JESUS H CHRIST ENOUGH ALREADY... Please stop with the hairbrained ideas to put random things in 69/8 space. These goals are mutually exclusive. You
can't put important stuff on broken IPs, and you can't fix broken IPs by
putting unimportant stuff on them.
Sure you can. You just need content unimportant enough that no one (the end users on a network that is still blocking 69/8, AND the networks that put up the sacrificial target host on a 69/8 IP) is truly hurt if the connection fails, but important enough that the failure will lead to the broken networks being fixed and clue being distributed.
> no one who is still
running outdated filters is going to notice it because they can't reach Google beta sites.
I'm suggesting that Google explain why they are doing this on a page linked off their homepage. If this is done, people ARE going to notice, and ARE going to find out why. When it is widely publicised, it WILL be noticed even more.
These are not just bad ideas, they are STUPID ideas.
Where is your bright suggestion?
Listen, I have space in 69/8, and it is NOT an epidemic.
So how are you solving your 69/8 filtering/connectivity problems?
Back when 64/8 was opened up it destroyed a beautiful 64/3 filter on unallocated space, and yet somehow we all made it through just fine. The people who are stupid enough to filter IPs without a plan on keeping those filters up to date deserve their connectivity problems.
OK, I'm confused. I thought that the connectivity problem was, by and large, endured by the 69/8 IP users, and not on the networks with out-of-date bogon filters. Please elaborate on how this problem is really a connectivity problem for the networks with the bad filters, and how they are experiencing and then fixing this problem. Because from all reports here, it's obvious to ME that these networks are totally unaware of the issue because it is NOT creating a problem for them!
p.s. Please don't cc me on replies, or on replies to replies, etc. I get the list email just fine and I don't need more than one copy of any given email. Really.