> Still trying to understand deployment scenarios for nat-pt.
enterprise
> native-v6 + v4-nat (as outlined in Michael Sinatra's lightning talk)
i am not unhappy with ms's preso except that enterprise keeps whining
about 1918 conflicts
> and Alain Durand's v4v6v4 seem more likely deployment can
Randy Bush wrote:
And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
do you think
Nathan Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?
>>
>> From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and
>> doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything
>> else).
>> That would be a huge benefit
> Giving away code and hardware is quite the opposite of
> lucrative, let me assure you.
Right. I looked at your message and it does not parse
very clearly. Given that it is odd for people to offer
to give away boxes, let alone quote a price for the
box that they are giving away, I thought you w
On 18/03/2008, at 3:34 PM, Andy Dills wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got
some decent
instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of
pat
> And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
> to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
> this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
do you think it will scale well?
Randy Bush wrote:
I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.
by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had
the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked we
> I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
> might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.
by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had
the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked well.
randy
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> > I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some
> > decent
> > instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
> > To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
> I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some decent
> instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
> To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of patches,
> and Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-d
On 17/03/2008, at 11:07 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you
don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there
are more v6 users on those two than there are on native
v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Abley wrote:
| I'm sure for many small networks a Soekris box would do fine. For the
| record, FreeBSD also runs on more capable hardware.
Can attest to that. I have picked up Nathan's handywork and used it on
other hardware. some work is neede
On 17-Mar-2008, at 06:07, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you
don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there
are more v6 users on those two than there are on native
v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pr
> If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you
> don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there
> are more v6 users on those two than there are on native
> v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pre-built FreeBSD image
> that does it, boot off compact flash or hard
better method of
providing their services to each other and the public.
John (ISDN) Lee
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Glen Kent
Sent: Sat 3/15/2008 2:19 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
Hi,
I was just
On 15/03/2008, at 7:19 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
I have another related question:
Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
circumstances if
No, and no. Shouldn't be a surprise. ("all" is the dealbreaker, certain
agencies are on the ball, but most are barely experimenting).
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Glen Kent wrote:
:
:Hi,
:
:I was just reading
:http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
:some time back in 20
Hi,
I was just reading
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the
target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move
their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here. Are w
18 matches
Mail list logo
