[110755] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Approach to allocating netblocks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?Q?M=C3=A5ns_Nilsson?=)
Thu Jan 15 15:32:53 2009
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:32:34 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?Q?M=C3=A5ns_Nilsson?= <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0901151211p6012de1dy63ba9f99d70174b0@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==========9766DF56A99754D06AA1==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
--On torsdag, torsdag 15 jan 2009 15.11.48 -0500 William Herrin
<herrin-nanog@dirtside.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:16 AM, M=C3=A5ns Nilsson
> <mansaxel@besserwisser.org> wrote:
>> from operational standpoint renumbering is not that bad.
>=20
> M=C3=A5ns,
>=20
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-01.t
> xt provides 24 pages and growing worth of problems with renumbering.
>=20
> Here's a simple one:
>=20
> Web browsers intentionally violate the DNS TTL with a technique called
> "DNS Pinning."=20
<snip>
Given the small netmasks, I'd guess that most of the browser population
behind them is addicted to a proxy. The proxy might not subscribe to
pinning.=20
Also, the browsers that run for months typically aren't on end-user PCs,
but on the workstations of the clued, if I might be so blunt.=20
It is not that renumbering is painless, not at all. But it is very useful
as "spring cleaning". I'd rather know what happens by testing it than
finding out by being woken up while on call.=20
--=20
M=C3=A5ns Nilsson M A C H I N A
Now KEN and BARBIE are PERMANENTLY ADDICTED to MIND-ALTERING DRUGS ...
--==========9766DF56A99754D06AA1==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFJb51i02/pMZDM1cURAgc/AKCifOBj8pthZN7cw75zcuy+DzhaiQCgoB6U
0W2O2ABvwHF9IVsR/N26VCI=
=QCye
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========9766DF56A99754D06AA1==========--
