> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:13 PM
> To: Zaid Ali
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
>
> > They are not glowing because applications are simply not moving to
> IPv6.
> > Google
> Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:30:42 -0500
> From: Larry Sheldon
>
> I keep seeing mention here of the "permanent" MAC address.
>
> Really? Permanent?
>
> Been a long time, but it seems like one of the fun things about having
> DECNet-phase IV on the network was its propensity for changing the MA
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 04:31:25PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> > a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> > included in the base licence.
Interesting. So much for their "IPv6 doesn't cos
I keep seeing mention here of the "permanent" MAC address.
Really? Permanent?
Been a long time, but it seems like one of the fun things about having
DECNet-phase IV on the network was its propensity for changing the MAC
address to be the DECNet address.
And it seems like the HP-UX machines (amo
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:17 PM, A.B. Jr. wrote:
> While most of end user devices work with temporarily assigned IP addresses,
> or even with RFC1918 behind a NAT, very humble ethernet devices come from
> factory with a PERMANENTE unique mac address.
Just don't tell Greenpeace - I don't think we
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>
>> Someone in another thread mentioned interop show network. Which made me
>> curious and I did a bit of searching. I found the following article from
>> 2008 about the interop show:
>> http://www.ne
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:01:36 -0700
joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/3/2010 6:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't know how
> > simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols were designed
> > more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more ca
2010/4/4 Scott Howard
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman
> wrote:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
> >>
> >> The IEEE expects the MAC-48 space to be exhausted no sooner than the
> year
> >> 2100[3]; EUI-64s are not expected to run out in the foreseeable future.
> >>
On 4/4/2010 7:57 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:57:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? Assuming an average 1024
byte packet size, on a 10Gbps link they're
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone in another thread mentioned interop show network. Which made me
curious and I did a bit of searching. I found the following article from 2008
about the interop show: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27583
The show could setup an IPv
> And then there was the time an electrician accidentally cut the coax and
> decided to splice it with black electrical tape...
He, he, we had all sorts of issues, ethernet was not a very well known
technology yet. We had a radio antenna on the roof and when the guys
doing the install saw a coax
On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:29 47PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> The N connectors were easier to deal with than the vampire taps. To add
>> a node, you just "spliced" a new xceiver box onto the line where you
>> needed it by screwing a new length of cable into the new + existng
>> xceivers, then connecting
> The N connectors were easier to deal with than the vampire taps. To add
> a node, you just "spliced" a new xceiver box onto the line where you
> needed it by screwing a new length of cable into the new + existng
> xceivers, then connecting the AUI drop cable from the box to the node.
I've to sa
On 4/4/2010 09:02, Larry Sheldon wrote:
This attribution line is wrong--I meant to leave only the two line below
it--for my purposes it did matter who said it.
> On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
The line above should have been edited out leaving only these two.
>>> What if TCP is removed ? a
On 4/4/2010 19:16, Mark Smith wrote:
<-snip->
> Actually the IEEE have never called it "Ethernet", it's all been IEEE
> 802.3 / XXX{BASE|BROAD}-BLAH.
>
> "Ethernet", assuming version 1 and 2, strictly means thick coax, vampire
> taps and AUI connectors running at (half-duplex) 10Mbps. I saw some of
On 4/3/2010 6:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't know how
simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols were designed
more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more capable than IPv4.
Zing, and there you have it! The hourglass is thin
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:57:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
> of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? Assuming an average 1024
> byte packet size, on a 10Gbps link they're wasting 100+ Mbps. 100GE /
> 1TE starts to m
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had
>>> laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardwa
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Jim Burwell wrote:
I agree. I remember back in the 80s when I first got access to UseNet
and UUCP based email thinking and saying things like "the net will
change the world", because for the first time people from all over the
globe were communicating fairly openly and inexp
On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had laying
around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due to it's
fib being a bit undersized for
> I agree. I remember back in the 80s when I first got access to UseNet
> and UUCP based email thinking and saying things like "the net will
> change the world", because for the first time people from all over the
> globe were communicating fairly openly and inexpensively, and somehow
> the intern
On 4/4/2010 17:20, Barry Shein wrote:
> I still believe that had as much to do with the collapse of the Soviet
> Union as the million other politicians who wish to take credit.
>
> It's arguable that UUCP (and Usenet, email, etc that it carried) was
> one of the most powerful forces for change in m
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 01:57:41 GMT
msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
> > of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? [...]
> > Actually the minimum 64 byte packet size could probably
Mark Smith wrote:
> Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
> of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? [...]
> Actually the minimum 64 byte packet size could probably go too, as that
> was only there for collision detection.
And maybe rename it to something e
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 14:05:50 -0700
Scott Howard wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
> >>
> >> The IEEE expects the MAC-48 space to be exhausted no sooner than the year
> >> 2100[3]; EUI-64s are not expected to run out in
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:17:28 -0400
John Peach wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
> David Andersen wrote:
>
> > There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
> > machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, etc.;
> > unless shown otherwise
> I remember around 1987 when Helsinki (Univ I believe) hooked up
> Talinn, Estonia via uucp (including usenet), who then hooked up MSU
> (Moscow State Univ) and the traffic began flowing.
I bet that there many histories, perhaps those that didn't have access
to modern communications and vast reso
I remember around 1987 when Helsinki (Univ I believe) hooked up
Talinn, Estonia via uucp (including usenet), who then hooked up MSU
(Moscow State Univ) and the traffic began flowing.
You could just about see the wide-eyed disbelief by some as they saw
for example alt.politics, you people just say
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had
> laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due
> to it's fib being a bit undersized for 330k routes plus v6, but hey, six
> years is lo
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:01:30 EDT, Steven Bellovin said:
> Right, of course -- they had to show the uucp path from a well-known node.
I remember trying to debug a very messy mail routing problem some 25 years ago,
which we finally traced back to the fact that pathalias was too smart by half,
and s
On Apr 4, 2010, at 6:55 07PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> the visibility of the path was the only thing ordinary users had to
>> worry about.
>
> you forgot, "and thus sigs were born." they once served a purpose other
> than ego
Right, of course -- they had to show the uucp path from a well-known nod
fwiw, i still run uucp for a very few remaining odd sites.
randy
> the visibility of the path was the only thing ordinary users had to
> worry about.
you forgot, "and thus sigs were born." they once served a purpose other
than ego
randy
>> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
>> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
> Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6
> has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.
and, after all, if ipv6 takes off, we plan to throw
> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> included in the base licence.
yep
maybe try is-is
randy
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM, A.B. Jr. wrote:
> Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
> What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be. Or it
> is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused throughout the world?
> All those low cost swi
On 4/4/2010 12:18, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
>
>>> File transfer wasn't multihop
>>>
>> It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
>> site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain i
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:48:38 -0700
Jim Burwell wrote:
> On 4/4/2010 08:46, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> > Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
> >
> >> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
> >> David Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> There are some classical case
On 4/4/10 2:04 PM, "Vadim Antonov" wrote:
>
>> Zaid
>>
>> P.s. Disclaimer: I have always been a network operator and never a dentist.
>
> I would have thought opposite.
>
It is sometimes helpful to draw lessons from nature and other systems :)
> People who have been on this list longer wou
On 4/4/2010 08:46, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
>> David Andersen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
>>> machine in a batch, re
This is an example of the law that the number of replys is directly
propotional to the cluelessness of the post?
Bruce
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>
>
> It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the
> intermediate site(s) allowed execution of the uucp
> Was a 1956 Video Phone User - "On the Internet" ?
> http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-picturephone.html
Seems like ipvsomething.com is just another Internet entrepreneur who earns
money from driving traffic to nonsense sites that host Google ads.
He seems to think that the NANOG list is a
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Michael Sokolov
wrote:
> feature blocking seems to negate that. I mean, how could their
> disabled-until-you-pay blocking of "premium features" be effective if a
> user can get to the underlying Unix OS, shell, file system, processes,
Probably signed binaries, ver
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
>>
>> The IEEE expects the MAC-48 space to be exhausted no sooner than the year
>> 2100[3]; EUI-64s are not expected to run out in the foreseeable future.
>>
>>
>
> And this is what happens when you
> Zaid
>
> P.s. Disclaimer: I have always been a network operator and never a dentist.
I would have thought opposite.
People who have been on this list longer would probably remember when I
was playing in this sandbox.
The real wisdom about networks is "never try to change everything and
ever
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 11:53:54AM -0300, A.B. Jr. wrote:
Hi,
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be.
Or it is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused th
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the
intermediate site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25
years on the brain is fuzzy on the details ...
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote
commands, but I confess that my memory is a
> That the UUCP world developed links to "The Internet" (and FIDONet, and
> BITNET and ) goes without saying. But landing you Piper Cherokee at
> LAX doesn't make you part of the Commercial Airline Industry.
That's how for some time the distinction between "internet" and
"Internet" was born.
> But when I think of "network" I think of things like the PSTN, ABC,
> Mutual, California's DOJ torn-tape TTY, and FIDO where the message to be
> delivered was the focus and the internal works were pretty much
> uninteresting to the "user".
Read "Notable Computer Networks, John Quarterman and Jos
> i don't recall .uucp making it into the actual DNS, but i remember our mail
> system used it as a trigger to do a uucp-maps lookup.
It was for a brief period of time as a pseudo-domain and placeholder
for MX RRs for machines participating in the UUCP project.
Mary Ann Horton (formerly Mark Hort
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
>> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
>
> Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU d
Tore Anderson wrote:
> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> included in the base licence.
Really? My level of respect for Juniper has just dropped a few notches
after reading this NANOG p
You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I
confess that my memory is also dim about whether
uucp file a!b!c
would be translated automatically. It has indeed been a while...
I'm pretty sure it was adding 'uucp' in the commands list that enabled the
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>> File transfer wasn't multihop
>
> It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
> site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is fuzzy
> on the details ...
You could certainly add uux
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is
fuzzy on the details ...
--lyndon
On Apr 4, 2010, at 12:02 42PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 4/4/2010 09:57, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>> UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering
>>> sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
>>
>> You should revise some of the history behind it.
On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,We
> need more of the spirit of the old days of networking when people building
> UUCP, and Fidonet and IP networks did less complaining about "vendors" and
> made thing
On 4/4/2010 6:46 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
Sounds like this guy could benefit from some carpeting and a few Roombas in his
Data Center ;)
trolls rarely benefit from anything but being ignored.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 11:53:54AM -0300, A.B. Jr. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
>
> What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be.
> Or it is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused throughout
> the world? A
On 4/4/2010 10:37, Jim Mercer wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:57:12AM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
>> for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
>> the transition to DNS was taking place, the old ban
On 4/4/10 6:44 AM, "Leen Besselink" wrote:
> "Out of the total number of emails received, 14% were received over
> IPv6, the rest over IPv4."
It should be clear that 14% received here is email to RIPE NCC servers. I
don't think we have 14% of SMTP traffic out there coming via IPv6. Actual
SMTP
On 4/4/2010 09:56, John Sage wrote:
> The degree to which people subscribed to this list, apparently having
> nothing better to do, will respond to a blatant troll is breathtaking.
Mama taught me to be polite and forgiving, it takes me a while to give
up on a persistent idiot--I want so badly to
On 4/4/2010 09:57, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering
>> sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
>
> You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
> for a very large network, it was even
Owen DeLong wrote:
>It was based on 56kbit lines and the primary applications were
>email, ftp, and telnet.
(you have to have the right Yorkshire accent and Monty Python background
for this...)
56kbit lines? If only we were so lucky...
We had 9600 V.29 synchronous modems!
Synchronous? My g
On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:46 17AM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
>> David Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
>>> machine in a batch,
In message <20100404111728.2b5c9...@milhouse.peachfamily.net>, John Peach
writes:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
> David Andersen wrote:
>
> > There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
> > machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, etc.;
Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
> David Andersen wrote:
>
> > There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
> > machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, etc.;
> > unless
http://www.lmdata.es/uets.htm
Original Message
Subject:what about 48 bits?
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:53:54 -0300
From: A.B. Jr.
To: nanog@nanog.org
Hi,
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What about mac addresses? Aren't they
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, jim deleskie wrote:
I've seen duplicate addresses in the wild in the past, I assume there
is some amount of reuse, even though they are suppose to be unique.
5 percent of the mac addresses in a ADSL population used the same MAC
address. Turned out to be some D-link device
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:57:12AM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
> for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
> the transition to DNS was taking place, the old bang style addresses
> like mine original sei
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM, John Peach wrote:
> Sun, for one, used to assign the same MAC address to every NIC in the
> same box.
Technically, they assigned a MAC to the NIC and a MAC to the box.
Unless you configured it otherwise, all NICs in the box defaulted to
using the box's MAC instead
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen wrote:
> There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
> machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, etc.; unless
> shown otherwise, these are likely to be errors, not accidental collisions.
>
>
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, etc.; unless
shown otherwise, these are likely to be errors, not accidental collisions.
-Dave
On Apr 4, 2010, at 10:57 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
> I've seen
>>> 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
>
> As is the lack of access to any of a large collection of books,
> articles, and anecdotes. ("Access" here meaning physica
I've seen duplicate addresses in the wild in the past, I assume there
is some amount of reuse, even though they are suppose to be unique.
-jim
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:53 AM, A.B. Jr. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
>
> What about mac address
> UUCP is not a descriptor of any kind of a network in any engineering
> sense that I know of. It is a point-to-point communications protocol.
You should revise some of the history behind it. It was a descriptor
for a very large network, it was even a TLD in the mid eighties when
the transition t
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/4/2010 05:00, IPv3.com wrote:
Based on these ASCII notes...(c. 1995 cave paintings)...
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt
Was a 1956 Video Phone User - "On the Internet" ?
http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-picturephone.html
Is a 2010 HDTV (ATSC DLNA) viewer - "
Hi,
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be. Or it
is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused throughout the world?
All those low cost switches and wifi adapters DO use unique mac addresses
On 4/4/2010 05:00, IPv3.com wrote:
> Based on these ASCII notes...(c. 1995 cave paintings)...
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt
>
> Was a 1956 Video Phone User - "On the Internet" ?
> http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-picturephone.html
>
> Is a 2010 HDTV (ATSC DLNA) viewer - "On the Int
In article <4bb897a7.60...@consolejunkie.net>, Leen Besselink
writes
>> (I saw a number in the last 2-3 days that 2-3% of spam is now being delivered
>> via SMTP-over-IPv6). You may not need that gear as much as you thought...
>
>This maybe ?:
>http://labs.ripe.net/content/spam-over-ipv6
>
>"Out
> > Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher
> > license fee for IPv6 support?
>
> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> included in the base licence.
>
> Our IPv6
On Apr 4, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> On 04/04/2010, at 7:54 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
>
>> As the "NANOG Community" Moves to IPv6...
>> ...
>> it might be a Public Service to post the IPv4 /8s made available.
>> ...
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
Please don
On 4/4/2010 00:29, Randy Bush wrote:
>> 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
As is the lack of access to any of a large collection of books,
articles, and anecdotes. (
On 4/3/2010 21:36, Joe Greco wrote:
>> 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 ?
I must have dozed off--what is the connection between the Subject: and
the recent traffic under it.
"The Internet"
Sounds like this guy could benefit from some carpeting and a few Roombas in his
Data Center ;)
Stefan Fouant
--Original Message--
From: Randy Bush
To: IPv3.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Tidbits & the "NANOG Community"
Sent: Apr 4, 2010 6:23 AM
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Bla
On 04/03/2010 07:39 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
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 man
In article <201004041249.o34cnuut078...@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco
writes
Some sources claim the PET is later, but I remember it because I was
doing a project on "PCs in Schools" in the spring of 1977, using an
8-bit PC that I had built myself on a patchboard. And the PET arrived
just in time fo
* Michael Dillon
> Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher
> license fee for IPv6 support?
Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
included in the base licence.
Our IP
> In article <207e4e4f-b642-424e-8649-810a589da...@delong.com>, Owen
> DeLong writes
> >I believe the IPv4 classful addressing scheme (which some have pointed
> >out was the second IPv4 addressing scheme, I wasn't involved early
> >enough for the first, so didn't remember it) predates commodore
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:42 PM, James Bensley wrote:
>
> Also having the email account ipv3@gmail.com, thats not very useful?
He's still got to reach the heights of IPv9
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
On 04/04/2010, at 7:54 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
> As the "NANOG Community" Moves to IPv6...
> ...
> it might be a Public Service to post the IPv4 /8s made available.
> ...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
MMC
As the "NANOG Community" Moves to IPv6...
...
it might be a Public Service to post the IPv4 /8s made available.
...
without that, Carriers may [assume] they are no longer in use and
start using them for their expansion
...
the DNS records of course flag your move to IPv6
Tidbits & the "NANOG Community"
...
with respect to jumping from 32-bits to 64-bits many UNIX-to-UNIX users
have noted... ONE more bit (33) may be enough to distinguish Legacy
from New. The bit would go on the Left as opposed to Right which would
double
the existing mess.
...
Linux has the added bi
Based on these ASCII notes...(c. 1995 cave paintings)...
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt
Was a 1956 Video Phone User - "On the Internet" ?
http://www.porticus.org/bell/telephones-picturephone.html
Is a 2010 HDTV (ATSC DLNA) viewer - "On the Internet" ?
Note for IPv6 archeologists...Mobile Di
> Also having the email account ipv3@gmail.com, thats not very
> useful?
an amazing insight! we need an email address police to get rid of those
folk who have un-american email addresses.
randy
In article <207e4e4f-b642-424e-8649-810a589da...@delong.com>, Owen
DeLong writes
I believe the IPv4 classful addressing scheme (which some have pointed
out was the second IPv4 addressing scheme, I wasn't involved early
enough for the first, so didn't remember it) predates commodore, apple,
etc
Sorry for double post:
Also having the email account ipv3@gmail.com, thats not very useful?
This sort email address should be on the list rules like that other fellow
who was spamming about top 50 AS's for botnets/spam etc.
--
Regards,
James.
http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/
If you did some more reading this would all be come clear?
On 4 April 2010 02:38, IPv3.com wrote:
> What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
>
Well both and neither, both of these are used and much more!
> As of 2010, many people would likely answer that question based on
> the Service
On 4/3/10 9:12 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
> Uh, netflix seems fully functional to me on IPv6. What do you think is
> missing?
Functional is the easy part and it seems Netflix has executed that well. I
was implying that the v6 traffic rate might not be quite there yet which is
what we saw with
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
