On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
> Is there anything inherently harmful with suggesting that filtering at
> RIR boundaries should be expected, but those that accept somewhat more
> lenient boundaries are nice guys??? When the nice guys run out of
> resources, they can filter at RIR boundarie
On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
Isn't this what you folks call "freedom of speech" ?
--
Leigh
FOS applies to actions by the government, not to actions taken
between two private parties.
E.g. DreamHost could easily ban any and all websites about oranges
and apples f
>> As to "there must be better knobs" I think it may be a little late
for that; by design (or as a consequence of it) the set of IPv6 knobs is
the same as the set of IPv4 knobs.
> The trouble is that BGP doesn't have a meaningful inter-AS metric.
(Although there is something that is called tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---
From: "Christopher Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think this goes back to my point about DHCP, today there is a
business practice and set of business requirements that work for a
host of reasons. Expecting that in v6 these requirements will
evaporate
On Jan 2, 2008 1:05 PM, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2-Jan-2008, at 10:21, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> > On 2 jan 2008, at 6:42, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >
> >> out of curiousity how is this sort of thing supposed to be done in
> >> v6?
> >> (traffic engineering given the '1
Anyone have any experience with software that will track both IPv4 and
IPv6 assignments in the OSS world? Any recommendations?
Thanks in advance,
DJ
On Jan 2, 2008 10:21 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2 jan 2008, at 6:42, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> > out of curiousity how is this sort of thing supposed to be done in v6?
> > (traffic engineering given the '1 prefix per ISP' standard mantra)
>
> AS path prepending, l
> If someone starts announcing dozens of prefixes in v6 then they either
> get blocked or they get a filter that restricts them to their covering
> route (or blocks them if they don't have it).
Too late once they've announced them
As with v4 if the herd doesn't stay together on policy then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/02/2008 10:13:52 AM:
> The 196.77 million figure is approxmately 19% higher than the 2005 and
> 2006 numbers, which were largely the same.
This is in line with my (un-scientific) observation that the growth of the
default-free routing table grew modestly through 2
2007 IPv4 Address Use Report
In 2007, the number of available IPv4 addresses went down from 1300.65
million to 1122.85 million, a difference of 177.8 million addresses.
The number of usable addresses is 3706.65 million, so on January 1,
2007 we were at 64.9% utilization and a year later we
10 matches
Mail list logo
