Is anyone on this list aware of any IPv6 ready networks in the English speaking caribbean?
Rudi Daniel On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:19 PM, <nanog-requ...@nanog.org> wrote: > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog@nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-requ...@nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-ow...@nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: quietly.... (Owen DeLong) > 2. Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? (Simon Leinen) > 3. Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? (Fred Richards) > 4. Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market (Joel Jaeggli) > 5. Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? (Cameron Byrne) > 6. Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market (John Curran) > 7. Re: quietly.... (Roland Perry) > 8. Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market (Joel Jaeggli) > 9. Re: quietly.... (Roland Perry) > 10. Re: quietly.... (Owen DeLong) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:22:55 -0800 > From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> > Subject: Re: quietly.... > To: "Lee Howard" <l...@asgard.org> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Message-ID: <be9e6edb-4c0b-4313-ba18-d38f8c881...@delong.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > Firewalls merely constrict it. Not that I advocate against the use of > > firewalls; > > in fact, I think I'm agreeing with you, and extending the argument a > little > > further, > > that we should move from NAT to firewalls, then from stateful firewalls > to > > secure hosts and network security appliances. > > > > Lee > > > > > I would be fine with that. However, in terms of the art of the possible > with the tools available today, IPv6 has no need of NAT, but, firewalls > cannot yet be safely removed from the equation. > > Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:43:04 +0100 > From: Simon Leinen <simon.lei...@switch.ch> > Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? > To: Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > Message-ID: <aatyghjeqv....@macsl.switch.ch> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Tim Chown writes: > > Which of the big boys are doing it? > > Google - although there don't call themselves a web hoster, they can be > used for hosting web sites using services such as Sites or App Engine. > Both support IPv6, either using the opt-in mechanism or by using an > alternate CNAME (ghs46 instead of ghs.google.com). That's what I use. > > None of the other large "cloud" providers seems to support IPv6 for > their users yet. In particular, neither Amazon's AWS not Microsoft > Azure have much visible activity in this direction. Rackspace have > announced IPv6 support for the first half of 2011. > > Concerning the more traditional webhosting offerings, I have no idea > about the "big boys". Here in Switzerland, a few smaller hosters > support IPv6. And I saw IPv6 mentioned in ads for some German server > hosting offering. Germany is interesting because it has a > well-developed hosting ecosystem with some really big players. > -- > Simon. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:49:06 -0500 > From: Fred Richards <fr...@geexology.org> > Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? > To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <aanlktiksv84+tsm80ajyxg-xzdfx3ngjz1fjm0kq6...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I ran across this link a while back, it shows, of the top 100k > websites (according to Alexa), which ones are IPv6 enabled: > > > http://www.atoomnet.net/ipv6_enabled_popular_websites.php?complete_list=true > > > > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Simon Leinen <simon.lei...@switch.ch> > wrote: > > Tim Chown writes: > >> Which of the big boys are doing it? > > > > Google - although there don't call themselves a web hoster, they can be > > used for hosting web sites using services such as Sites or App Engine. > > Both support IPv6, either using the opt-in mechanism or by using an > > alternate CNAME (ghs46 instead of ghs.google.com). ?That's what I use. > > > > None of the other large "cloud" providers seems to support IPv6 for > > their users yet. ?In particular, neither Amazon's AWS not Microsoft > > Azure have much visible activity in this direction. ?Rackspace have > > announced IPv6 support for the first half of 2011. > > > > Concerning the more traditional webhosting offerings, I have no idea > > about the "big boys". ?Here in Switzerland, a few smaller hosters > > support IPv6. ?And I saw IPv6 mentioned in ads for some German server > > hosting offering. ?Germany is interesting because it has a > > well-developed hosting ecosystem with some really big players. > > -- > > Simon. > > > > > > > > -- > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Fred > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:15:09 -0800 > From: Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> > Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market > To: John Curran <jcur...@istaff.org> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > Message-ID: <4d4ed71d.7020...@bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 2/6/11 8:00 AM, John Curran wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > >> What's really needed is seperate the routing slot market from the > >> address allocation market. > > > > Bingo! In fact, having an efficient market for obtaining routing of a > > given prefix, combined with IPv6 vast identifier space, could actually > > satisfy the primary goals that we hold for a long-term scalable address > > architecture, and enable doing it in a highly distributed, automatable > > fashion: > > So assuming this operates on a pollution model the victims of routing > table bloat are compensated by the routing table pollutors for the use > of the slots which they have to carry. so I take the marginal cost of > the slots that I need subtract the royalities I recieve from the other > participants and if I'm close to the mean number of slots per > participant then it nets out to zero. > > Routing table growth continues but with some illusion of fairness and > the cost of maintaining an elaborate system which no-one needs. > > Yay? > > > > Aggregation would be encouraged, since use of non-aggregatable address > > space would entail addition costs. These costs might be seen as minimal > > for some organizations that desire addressing autonomy, but others might > > decide treating their address space portable and routable results in > > higher cost than is desired. Decisions about changing prefixes with > > ISPs can be made based on a rational tradeoff of costs, rather than in > > a thicket of ISP and registry policies. > > > > Conservation would actually be greatly improved, since address space > > would only be sought after because of the need for additional unique > > identifiers, rather than obtaining an address block of a given size > > to warrant implied routability. In light of IPv6's vast address > > space, it actually would be possible to provide minimally-sized but > > assured unique prefixes automatically via nearly any mechanism (i.e. > > let your local user or trade association be a registry if they want) > > > > With a significantly reduced policy framework, Registration could be > > fully automated, with issuance being as simple as assurance the right > > level of verification of requester identity (You might even get rid > > of this, if you can assure that ISPs obtain clear identity of clients > > before serving them but that would preclude any form of reputation > > systems based on IP address prefix such as we have in use today...) > > > > Just think: the savings in storage costs alone (from the reduction in > > address policy-related email on all our mailing lists) could probably > > fund the system. :-) > > > > Oh well, one project at a time... > > /John > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:27:58 -0800 > From: Cameron Byrne <cb.li...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? > To: fr...@geexology.org > Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <aanlktikjc1e_yout7ntfhtdsnemh44-tbz-zj8vlt...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I have used both softlayer and arpnetworks. Both have v6 by default, but > only softlayer can be considered a big boy... multiple sites. Cloud and > dedicated servers ... softlayer is a class act with v6 added for free > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:32:17 -0500 > From: John Curran <jcur...@istaff.org> > Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market > To: Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > Message-ID: <83ef5ab0-741e-4fb2-a348-00477482a...@istaff.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > > > So assuming this operates on a pollution model the victims of routing > > table bloat are compensated by the routing table pollutors for the use > > of the slots which they have to carry. so I take the marginal cost of > > the slots that I need subtract the royalities I recieve from the other > > participants and if I'm close to the mean number of slots per > > participant then it nets out to zero. > > > > Routing table growth continues but with some illusion of fairness and > > the cost of maintaining an elaborate system which no-one needs. > > One hopes that the costs of consuming routing table slots creates > backpressure to discourage needless use, and that the royalities > receive offset the costs of carrying any additional routing table > slots. > > Note that our present system lacks both consistent backpressure on > consumption of routing table slots and compensation for carrying > additional routes. > > /John > > p.s. While I do believe there would be a net benefit, it also > should be noted that there is no apparent way to transition > to such a model in any case, i.e., it could have been done > that way from the beginning, but a large scale economic > reengineering effort at this point might be impossible. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:45:46 +0000 > From: Roland Perry <li...@internetpolicyagency.com> > Subject: Re: quietly.... > To: nanog@nanog.org > Message-ID: <ucksinak5ttnf...@perry.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed > > In article <85d304ba-6c4e-4b86-9717-2adb542b8...@delong.com>, Owen > DeLong <o...@delong.com> writes > > >> Part of the problem is knowing in advance what ISPs will and won't > >>do. It's all very well saying one shouldn't patronise an ISP that > >>blocks port 25, for example, but where is that documented before you buy? > >> > >If they don't document partial internet access blockage in the contract > >and the contract says they are providing internet access, then, they > >are in breach and you are free to depart without a termination fee and > >in most cases, demand a refund for service to date. > > You may be right about enforcing that in the USA (is it an FCC thing?), > but it won't fly in most other places. > > >Admittedly, I'm not over-fussed about email on my phone and I don't use > >a tether device at this point. > > The 3G I'm discussing is a dongle intended for general access. > > >I mostly expect 3G and 4G networks to be broken internet anyway. I was > >more speaking in terms of land-line providers. > > Apparently there are something like three times as many people with > mobile phones in the world, as with Internet access. And a lot of > network expansion is expected to be based on mobile connectivity as a > result. > -- > Roland Perry > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:49:12 -0800 > From: Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> > Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market > To: John Curran <jcur...@istaff.org> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > Message-ID: <4d4edf18.3000...@bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 2/6/11 9:32 AM, John Curran wrote: > > One hopes that the costs of consuming routing table slots creates > > backpressure to discourage needless use, and that the royalities > > receive offset the costs of carrying any additional routing table > > slots. > > > > Note that our present system lacks both consistent backpressure on > > consumption of routing table slots and compensation for carrying > > additional routes. > > The costs of carrying routes is unevenly distributed. when I have to > carry 2 million routes in my fib on few hundred 120Gb/s line cards it's > a bit different than someone with a software router who just has to make > sure they have 4GB of ram... > > That has very attractive properties along some dimensions. e.g. the cost > at the margin of connecting a new participant to the internet is rather > low. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:49:28 +0000 > From: Roland Perry <li...@internetpolicyagency.com> > Subject: Re: quietly.... > To: nanog@nanog.org > Message-ID: <5iyxqtbo8ttnf...@perry.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed > > In article <20110205131510.be13e9b5...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews > <ma...@isc.org> writes > >> And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small > >> enterprise attract their attention and get the features added? > > > >You return the equipment as not suitable for the advertised purpose > >and demand your money back. Renumbering is expected to occur with > >IPv6, part of renumbering is getting the name to address mappings > >right. With DHCP the DHCP server normally does it. With SLAAC the > >host has to do it as there is no other choice. > > > >Here in Australia it is Repair/Replace/Refund if the product purchased > >is faulty. That applies to all products. If the milk is off when > >we get home we go back and get it replaced and if the store is out > >of stock we get a refund. I've returned and had replaced plenty > >of stuff over the years. > > I think you are just confirming my view that moving from IPv4 to IPv6 > will involve more than the ISP doing some magic that's transparent to > the majority of users. And good luck returning a 3 year old PS/3 for a > refund on the basis it doesn't support IPv6. > -- > Roland Perry > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:17:00 -0800 > From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> > Subject: Re: quietly.... > To: Roland Perry <li...@internetpolicyagency.com> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Message-ID: <bc37a5f0-78de-4881-b649-0d42610be...@delong.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > In article <20110205131510.be13e9b5...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews < > ma...@isc.org> writes > >>> And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small > >>> enterprise attract their attention and get the features added? > >> > >> You return the equipment as not suitable for the advertised purpose > >> and demand your money back. Renumbering is expected to occur with > >> IPv6, part of renumbering is getting the name to address mappings > >> right. With DHCP the DHCP server normally does it. With SLAAC the > >> host has to do it as there is no other choice. > >> > >> Here in Australia it is Repair/Replace/Refund if the product purchased > >> is faulty. That applies to all products. If the milk is off when > >> we get home we go back and get it replaced and if the store is out > >> of stock we get a refund. I've returned and had replaced plenty > >> of stuff over the years. > > > > I think you are just confirming my view that moving from IPv4 to IPv6 > will involve more than the ISP doing some magic that's transparent to the > majority of users. And good luck returning a 3 year old PS/3 for a refund on > the basis it doesn't support IPv6. > > -- > > Roland Perry > > I'm pretty sure the PS3 will get resolved through a software update. > > Yes, there will be user-visible disruptions in this transition. > > No, it can't be 100% magic on the part of the service provider. > > It still has to happen. There is no viable alternative. > > Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 93 > ************************************* > -- Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774> **1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774> * * *
