Re: legacy /8

On 03/04/10 23:11 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote: With all that bitching about IPv6 how come nobody wrote an RFC for a very simple solution to the IPv4 address exhaustion problem: +1 years. Step 1: specify an IP option for extra "low order" bits of source & destination address. Add handling of t

Re: legacy /8

On Sat, Apr 03, 2010, Vadim Antonov wrote: > Step 1: specify an IP option for extra "low order" bits of source & > destination address. Add handling of these to the popular OSes. Don't IP options translate to "handle in slow path" on various routing platforms? :) THat makes "leave backbones un

Re: legacy /8

With all that bitching about IPv6 how come nobody wrote an RFC for a very simple solution to the IPv4 address exhaustion problem: Step 1: specify an IP option for extra "low order" bits of source & destination address. Add handling of these to the popular OSes. Step 2: make NATs which directl

Re: What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?

> UNIX-to-UNIX Service-Based solutions pre-date many ARPA DARPA DOD > funding programs run by people who do not write code you're shocking lack of clue is showing randy

Re: What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?

On 4/3/2010 6:38 PM, IPv3.com wrote: What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ? As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based on the Services they use as opposed to a religious adoration for TCP/IP. See: ...anti-v6 religiou

Re: legacy /8

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:37:51 -0700 (PDT) David Barak wrote: > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Mark Smith > wrote: > > To: "George Bonser" > > > No.  But that isn't the point.  The point is > > that v6 was a bad solution > > > to the problem.  Rather than simply address the > > address depletion > > > probl

Re: What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?

> What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same > 160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Addressing last a few years ? > > IPv6 is a loser because everyone has to carry the overhead of bloated > packets. It is a one-size-fits-all take it or leave it solution. By that logi

Re: What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?

> What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ? None of the above. Read the instructions manual and don't abuse your meds. J.

What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?

What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ? As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based on the Services they use as opposed to a religious adoration for TCP/IP. What if TCP is removed ? and IP is completely re-worked in the same 160-bit foot-print as IPv4 ? Would 64-bit Ad

Re: legacy /8

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Mark Smith wrote: > To: "George Bonser" > > No.  But that isn't the point.  The point is > that v6 was a bad solution > > to the problem.  Rather than simply address the > address depletion > > problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that > nobody has while > > creating a

Re: legacy /8

> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago, and if cash fell from the sky ... to folk actually running real networks, 'support' means *parity* with ipv4, i.e. fast path at decent rates, management and monitoring, no licensing extortion, ... we don't have that tod

Fw: legacy /8

Hi, Vint Cerf kindly sent through some more explanation. Regards, Mark. Begin forwarded message: Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 08:17:28 -0400 From: Vint Cerf To: Mark Smith Cc: Andrew Gray <3...@blargh.com>, NANOG List Subject: Re: legacy /8 When the Internet design work began, there were only a

Re: legacy /8

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 11:25:48 -0700 "George Bonser" wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] > > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:54 AM > > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > > Subject: Re: legacy /8 > > > > > > That is the parachute's fault? > > > >

Re: legacy /8

They are not glowing because applications are simply not moving to IPv6. Google has two popular applications on IPv6, Netflix is on it way there but what are other application companies doing about it? A popular application like e-mail is so far behind [ref: http://eng.genius.com/blog/2009/09/14/em

Re: legacy /8

On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: > If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago, > why aren't transit links glowing with IPv6 connectivity? If it's not the > hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or processes? Or the fact that "sup

RE: legacy /8

If Google made the same strong statement with IPv6 as they have done with their 700 MHz bid or the Google-subsidized fiber project, it could make a significant difference. A few examples come to mind: - free or discounted advertising to vendors if delivered over IPv6: this would incent advertisers

RE: legacy /8

If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago, why aren't transit links glowing with IPv6 connectivity? If it's not the hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or processes? Frank -Original Message- From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@

Re: legacy /8

> No. But that isn't the point. The point is that v6 was a bad solution > to the problem. Rather than simply address the address depletion > problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that nobody has while > creating a whole bunch more that we will have. it's known as "second system syndrome."

RE: legacy /8

> -Original Message- > From: ma...@isc.org [mailto:ma...@isc.org] > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:42 AM > To: George Bonser > Cc: Larry Sheldon; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: legacy /8 > > > And we would have still had the same problem of intercommunicating. > We know how to talk f

Re: legacy /8

On Apr 3, 2010, at 8:25 AM, George Bonser wrote: > The point is that v6 was a bad solution to the problem. Well, yes, but... > Rather than simply address the address depletion > problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that nobody has while > creating a whole bunch more that we will have.

Re: legacy /8

On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Robert Brockway wrote: > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, jim deleskie wrote: >> Just like 640k or memory :) > But what if I said "640 petabytes will be more than anyone will ever need". > The future might prove me wrong but it probably won't happen for a long time. > That's a b

Re: legacy /8

In message <5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee08fe6...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com>, "George Bonser" writes: > No. But that isn't the point. The point is that v6 was a bad solution > to the problem. Rather than simply address the address depletion > problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that no

RE: legacy /8

> -Original Message- > From: George Bonser [mailto:gbon...@seven.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:26 AM > To: Larry Sheldon > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: legacy /8 > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] > > Sent: Saturd

RE: legacy /8

> -Original Message- > From: James Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:08 PM > To: George Bonser > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: legacy /8 > > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM, George Bonser > wrote: > > Any school teaching v4 at this point other than as

RE: legacy /8

> -Original Message- > From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:54 AM > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: legacy /8 > > > That is the parachute's fault? > > Really? > -- No. But that isn't the point. The point is that v6 was a bad solut

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 27, Issue 23

I am researching a WISP and need some advise about mesh networks, low cost equipment, and operations in a developing country with a relatively small population say 120K people. Anyone here can offer advice off list please? RD

Re: legacy /8

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:12:20 +1030, Mark Smith said: > going to be enough. I'm not sure why the 32 bit address size was > persisted with at that point - maybe it was because there would be > significant performance loss in handling addresses greater than what > was probably the most common host wo

Re: legacy /8

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM, George Bonser wrote: > Any school teaching v4 at this point other than as a legacy protocol > that they teach on the second year because "they might see it in the > wild" should be closed down.  All new instruction that this point should > begin and end with v6 wit

Re: legacy /8

> Not often you hear something that has changed just about every aspect of > life and enabled things that could not be imagined at its outset  called > a failure Sounds like you are describing the Roman Empire. It failed and that's why we now have an EU in its place. Things change. Time to move o

Re: legacy /8

On 4/3/2010 12:31, George Bonser wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] >> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:43 AM >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: legacy /8 >> >> On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote: That adoption is so low at

Re: legacy /8

In message <4bb7621b.9030...@cox.net>, Larry Sheldon writes: > On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote: > >> That adoption is so low at this point really says that it has failed. > > > > In the real world, there is no success or failure, only next steps. > > At this point, IPv4 has failed, > >

Re: legacy /8

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT, Jeffrey Lyon said: > For small companies the cost of moving to IPv6 is far too great, > especially when we rely on certain DDoS mitigation gear that does not > yet have an IPv6 equivalent. So? How many people are *realistically* being hit by IPv6 DDoS right now?

RE: legacy /8

> -Original Message- > From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:43 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: legacy /8 > > On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote: > >> That adoption is so low at this point really says that it has > failed. > > >

RE: legacy /8

> -Original Message- > From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc] > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 11:48 PM > To: George Bonser > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: legacy /8 > > On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote: > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j..

RE: legacy /8

> -Original Message- > From: Mark Smith > [mailto:na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org] > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 11:09 PM > To: George Bonser > Cc: John Palmer (NANOG Acct); nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: legacy /8 > Y2K was a bit different though - there was

Re: legacy /8

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, jim deleskie wrote: Just like 640k or memory :) But what if I said "640 petabytes will be more than anyone will ever need". The future might prove me wrong but it probably won't happen for a long time. That's a better analogy for IPv6. IPv6 could have included a larg

Re: legacy /8

On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote: >> That adoption is so low at this point really says that it has failed. > > In the real world, there is no success or failure, only next steps. > At this point, IPv4 has failed, Failed? Really?!!?! Not often you hear something that has changed just abo

Re: legacy /8

> That adoption is so low at this point really says that it has failed. In the real world, there is no success or failure, only next steps. At this point, IPv4 has failed, and IPv6 is the next step. No realistic alternative next steps exist at present. In addition any alternative next step to IPv6

Re: legacy /8

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > ipv4 spae is not 'running out.'  the rirs are running out of a free > resource which they then rent to us.  breaks my little black heart. > > even if, and that's an if, ipv6 takes off, ipv4 is gonna be around for a > lng while.  when 95% of t

Re: legacy /8

In message , jim d eleskie writes: > James, > > I agree with you concern, and as someone else said the devil is in > the details, you points are something that would need to be looked at > if enough people though we should move forward and look at an idea > like this, which I think we should, bu

Re: legacy /8

On Apr 3, 2010, at 9:55 13AM, jim deleskie wrote: > Not sure the IETF looked at it or not, but personally I'm one of those > people that has never accepted a solution just because, its the only > option there. I haven't always won my battles, but never just give in > :) > Guess what -- this so

Re: legacy /8

James, I agree with you concern, and as someone else said the devil is in the details, you points are something that would need to be looked at if enough people though we should move forward and look at an idea like this, which I think we should, but not sure if enough traffic to start down that

Re: legacy /8

Not sure the IETF looked at it or not, but personally I'm one of those people that has never accepted a solution just because, its the only option there. I haven't always won my battles, but never just give in :) -jim On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Jim Burwell wrote: > On 4/2/2010 19:13, Geor

Re: legacy /8

I haven't seen anything, not to say there isn't, but I would certainly be open to the idea. From an operational point of view to me it seems much more straight forward then v6. -jim On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: > Is someone volunteering to work on an RFC?  Or,

Re: legacy /8

People use IPv4 because it's cost effective to do so. When I only have to pay $1250 per year for a /21 there is little incentive to heavily restrict the use of that space. People are buying dedicated servers every day with /29 - /24 of space using very questionable justification and any justificati

Re: legacy /8

A more productive approach might, and I emphasize *might*, be to identify those allocations which are hijacked and/or in use by dedicated abuse operations. This would have the desirable side effect of depriving those operations of resources, however it would also saddle subsequent owners with the

Re: Books for the NOC guys...

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > So, what are you having your up-and-coming NOC staff read? Since I thought this was worthwhile summarising, I've dumped it on the mail topics page in the Wiki: http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/MailTopics I specifically left out the programming

Re: legacy /8

On 4/3/2010 01:03, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: >> It was thought that we would not have nearly so many people connected >> to the internet. It was expected that most things connecting to the >> internet would be minicomputers and mainframes. > > It took some visionary and creative

Re: legacy /8

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:17 PM, jim deleskie wrote: > not, but I've been asking people last few months why we don't just do > something like this. don't even need to get rid of BGP, just add some [snip] > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, George Bonser wrote: [snip]>> and there ya go. Oh, and prob

Re: legacy /8

Owen DeLong wrote: It was thought that we would not have nearly so many people connected to the internet. It was expected that most things connecting to the internet would be minicomputers and mainframes. It took some visionary and creative thinking to "come up" with the internet. But given

Re: legacy /8

> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:25:22 -0700 > From: Jeroen van Aart > Subject: Re: legacy /8 > To: NANOG list > Message-ID: <4bb66ed2.6080...@mompl.net> > > Cutler James R wrote: > > I also just got a fresh box of popcorn. I will sit by and wait > > I honestly am not trying to be a troll. It's jus

Re: legacy /8

On 4/2/2010 21:23, Randy Bush wrote: >> Anyway, I see it as pretty much moot, since many major players (Comcast, >> Google, etc) are in the midst of major IPv6 deployments as we speak. >> Eventually you will have to jump on the bandwagon too. :-) >> > clue0: the isp for which i work deployed

Re: legacy /8

No, this is how the RIR process works. The RIRs request their next /8s and begin the "cleaning" process on them several months prior to running out of their previous allocations. This is done to try and make the allocations/assignments from those blocks as immediately useful as possible to their

Re: legacy /8

On Apr 2, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > On 4/2/10 3:01 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: >> I am curious. Once we're nearing exhausting all IPv4 space will there >> ever come a time to ask/demand/force returning all these legacy /8 >> allocations? I think I understand the difficulty in that,