Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Hi, I guess I am confused. Don't you have to pay for IP4 space? I know I am still fairly new to things. So maybe I just don't get it. Sincerely, Mark Antonio Querubin wrote: On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Kevin Stange wrote: How much IPv6 address space were they expecting? I have trouble envisioni

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Kevin Stange wrote: How much IPv6 address space were they expecting? I have trouble envisioning any operation that could require more than a /32 immediately that can't afford to pay $4500 per YEAR. Amount of address space wasn't the problem. The application was actually

Re: Finding content in your job title

On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:28 32PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: > > [ snip ] > > >> >> For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have >> never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since >> 2001), a

Re: Hubs on a NIC (was:Re: what about 48 bits?)

On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:03 16AM, Joe Greco wrote: >> On Wednesday 07 April 2010 07:18:57 am Joe Greco wrote: >>> To me, this is a Dilbert-class engineering failure. I would imagine that >>> if you could implement a hub on the network card, the same chip(s) would >>> work in an external tin can wit

Re: Finding content in your job title

On 4/7/2010 17:45, Gregory Hicks wrote: > Actually, it doesn't matter how much you make per hour, the deciding > factor between exempt and non-exempt is how many (if any) people you > SUPERVISE. No supervision of others, then non-exempt. I don't think that is correct. "Professionals" do not su

APNIC's report on traffic directed to 1.0.0.0/8

http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2010/04/msg2.html (There's also a PDF version with easier to enlarge images at http://www.potaroo.net/studies/1slash8/1slash8.pdf ) Scott.

Re: what about 48 bits?

Nick Hilliard wrote: On an even more unrelated note, does anyone remember the day that CMU-TEK tcp/ip stopped working some time in the early 1990s? That was a load of fun. I remember a satellite taking care of trans-Atlantic internet traffic going down in the mid 90s causing 30 minute lags o

Re: XO Communications rDNS

Adam Rothschild wrote: With that said, it would seem XO decided to stop maintaining PTR records for backbone devices, instead opting for the more generic 'x.x.x.x.ptr.xo.net' (where x.x.x.x is an interface's IP address) naming convention. The particular /28 netblock I talk about does not have a

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 04/07/2010 06:20 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > APNIC has a calculator for the fees for the space. you pay max(IPv4 space > fee, IPv6 space fee). So basically you don't pay anything to dual stack your > current network. It currently works the same way in ARIN's fee schedule. However, in this dis

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being unregulated to regulated, whatever that means. I would think multiple times before making that jump. Hence my suggestion to set up a separate organization to request

Re: Finding content in your job title

On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Gregory Hicks wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:39:09 -0700 >> From: Jeroen van Aart >> To: NANOG list >> Subject: Re: Finding content in your job title >> >> Lamar Owen wrote: >>> companies, Official Title is used to determine salary (or even >>> whether you'r

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> Do you mean the $2250 for a /32, or the $1250 for a /48? Compare the > relative costs to ARIN; ARIN's fees aren't set per IP address. if not, then why are they not flat per-allocation? randy

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Dave Temkin wrote: There are 117,351,239 domain names registered. If I had to guess, there are less than 1% of that total number in IP assignments (not allocations), but I don't have the patience to go compile those statistics. GoDaddy exists based on volume, which we don't have the same sc

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your > average comcast user is on IPv6? we should live so long randy

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: Joe Greco wrote: It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space. We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the a

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:49 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:52 AM, William Pitcock wrote: >> And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your >> average comcast user is on IPv6? > > The chances of this actually occurring in our lifetime are so small as to be

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

APNIC has a calculator for the fees for the space. you pay max(IPv4 space fee, IPv6 space fee). So basically you don't pay anything to dual stack your current network. Also, if you are current standing member, they don't even ask you to justify IPv6, they give you a similar space to your curren

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

That talks about the LRSA fee. Everything below that, however, refers to ISP fees, not to end user fees. There is no speculation on that page as to what LRSA fees will be after 2013, and, there is nothing indicating that we should expect a significant change in end-user fees for LRSA or RSA.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Joe Greco wrote: > > It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's > moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to > a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space. > > We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it s

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

But its not portable. Thats a deal breaker for some applications. - Original Message - From: "Scott Leibrand" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 5:57 PM Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space Also, don't forget that if you want to pay less (i.e. nothing) for y

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Wed 4/7/2010 2:12 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote: On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Ricky Beam wrote: They will have to start paying for address space like everyone else. I could handle 'like everyone else', but have you noticed the HUGE per IP disparity between large and small block sizes? Gar

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

I kind of thought that was something that had already been worked out. Thats what I get for not paying close enough attention. - Original Message - From: "Deepak Jain" To: "Lee Howard" ; "'Gary E. Miller'" ; "'OwenDeLong'" Cc: "'NANOG list'" Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 5:31 PM

Re: Finding content in your job title

> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:39:09 -0700 > From: Jeroen van Aart > To: NANOG list > Subject: Re: Finding content in your job title > > Lamar Owen wrote: > > companies, Official Title is used to determine salary (or even > > whether you're an exempt employee or not). And the company's > > bylaws

RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Now I may be talking crazy... IIRC, all of IPv4 space maps to a section of IPv6 space. If one has legacy IPv4 space, but actually talks IPv6 couldn't one announce a prefix much longer than a /64 to map them onto the IPv6 universe (assuming people would allow such craziness... perhaps on th

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: > Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who > have > IP4 legacy space. > > Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. > If not, is ARIN > saying we have to pay th

RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> -Original Message- > From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:g...@rellim.com] > From: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers > > "The annual fee will be $100 USD until 2013, at which time ARIN's Board > of Trustees may choose to raise the fee." Right. That's for legacy space. The Bo

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there > isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the > form of the fees. No you wouldn't. You'd hit the next impediment where the presence of IPv6 on yo

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:17:49 PDT, "Gary E. Miller" said: > Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note > how the small guys get hit much harder per IP. The small guys pay: $0.74505805969 per /64. ($1250 / (2^(64-40)) The big guys pay: $0.8185452 per /64. ($

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:52 AM, William Pitcock wrote: > And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your > average comcast user is on IPv6? The chances of this actually occurring in our lifetime are so small as to be meaningless. There are (according to published reports) b

NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8)

> > Nobody promised you a free lunch. In any case, the investment required to > > turn up IPv6 support is a lot less than the cost of carrier grade NAT. And > > the running costs of IPv6 are also lower, > > Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data showing how CGN > is

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Owen! On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year > for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what > you would call significant? As always, the devil is in the

Re: XO Communications rDNS

On 2010-04-07-14:50:14, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > I manage some IP space that's provided by an ISP but is "owned" by XO. I > am trying to have rDNS configured but their contact email > (ipad...@eng.xo.com) in the whois does not grace me with a response (yet). > > Does anyone know if there is a w

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Ricky! On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Ricky Beam wrote: > They will have to start paying for > address space like everyone else. I could handle 'like everyone else', but have you noticed the HUGE per IP disparity between large and small block sizes? RGDS G

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what you would call significant? Owen On Apr 7, 2010, at 1:59 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: > Yah, thats what we are thinking here. We'll probably stick with

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Just curious: why not set up a separate entity to apply for IPv6 space? Do you get a cheaper fee (or other brownie points) if you already have an allocation? John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote (on Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 03:59:30PM -0500): > Yah, thats what we are thinking here. We'll probably stick with

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:09:30 -0400, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Yeap. Just like everyone else with address space assigned from ARIN. Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6? Yes! However, eventually, your "free"

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Yah, thats what we are thinking here. We'll probably stick with IP4 only. Sounds like ARIN has set a trap, so that virtually any contact with them will result in the ceding of legacy rights. We'll be sure to avoid any such contact. Thanks everyone for the info. John - Original Message -

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 2010-04-07, at 14:02, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote: > ARIN Region IPv6 fee waiver: > https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers > > "In Jan 2008, the Board of Trustees decided to reduce the fee waiver > incrementally over a period of 4 years. Full fees will be in effect

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:52 PM, William Pitcock wrote: > And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your > average comcast user is on IPv6? > > Will you have an incentive then? > > As long as Comcast or $EYEBALL_NET provides some sort of IPv6->IPv4, no. > William > > >

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 15:31 -0500, Joe Greco wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:22 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) > > > wrote: > > >> Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those > > >> who have > > >> IP4 le

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Joe! On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Joe Greco wrote: > We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there > isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the > form of the fees. +1 RGDS GARY - ---

Re: Finding content in your job title

Nathan, CIJ (Chief Internet Janitor) is kinda catchy ;) and this best describe my line of work. Keeping the company's Internet clean.. or when a mess is done already. But at the end of the day regardless of one's fancy title. there is still the work ... if you love it stay with it. my 0.002nc

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:22 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) > > wrote: > >> Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those > >> who have > >> IP4 legacy space. > >> > >> Isn't there an automatic allocation for tho

Re: Finding content in your job title

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: [ snip ] > > For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have > never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since > 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth. > > How does the ops community fe

Re: interop show network

Christopher Morrow wrote: also, see previous 12 episodes of this conversation.. 1 /8 == ~3months in ARIN allocation timeframes. There is no cure, pls to be rolling out IPv6 2 years ago. Yes I understand. But a show like that going IPv6 only could provide some sort of incentive. And at the sam

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 04/07/2010 11:26 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, John Palmer \(NANOG Acct\) wrote: >> Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6? > > Yep. Just went through this with one organization which I hadn't > realized at the time was a legacy IPv4 holder. The fees were a surp

Re: Finding content in your job title

Larry Sheldon wrote: On 4/7/2010 13:39, Jeroen van Aart wrote: Unless I misread the laws regarding this, in CA at least you still have to earn ~$40/hr or more (it varies and last I read it was lowered a few $s) or more to be considered exempt, regardless of your job title When I was a man

Re: XO Communications rDNS

Call their tech support line. You can either just give them the name you want the rDNS to have or have them delegate the range to you. I've done both with them in the past and tech support was able to handle it. -Bryan On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > I manage some IP

XO Communications rDNS

I manage some IP space that's provided by an ISP but is "owned" by XO. I am trying to have rDNS configured but their contact email (ipad...@eng.xo.com) in the whois does not grace me with a response (yet). Does anyone know if there is a way to get this done or should I just not bother and live

Re: Finding content in your job title

On 4/7/2010 13:39, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Lamar Owen wrote: >> companies, Official Title is used to determine salary (or even whether >> you're an >> exempt employee or not). And the company's bylaws may invest particular > > Unless I misread the laws regarding this, in CA at least you still

Re: Finding content in your job title

Lamar Owen wrote: companies, Official Title is used to determine salary (or even whether you're an exempt employee or not). And the company's bylaws may invest particular Unless I misread the laws regarding this, in CA at least you still have to earn ~$40/hr or more (it varies and last I rea

RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

ARIN Region IPv6 fee waiver: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers "In Jan 2008, the Board of Trustees decided to reduce the fee waiver incrementally over a period of 4 years. Full fees will be in effect in 2012." Can you provide rationalization why anyone should automatically get

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

>>> Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP >>> space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? >>> Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6? If you're a very small company looking for larger than /32, maybe it's an issue. If you're a me

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:22 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) > wrote: >> Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those >> who have >> IP4 legacy space. >> >> Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have

Re: interop show network (was: legacy /8)

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:09:25 +0200, Eliot Lear said: > them). If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort > of testing isn't done at interop? Interop long ago ceased being a interop shootout and became a 8x11 color glossy trade show. I think the last time any actual *testing

RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

There was talk a little while ago about a fee waiver for legacy holders who had signed an RSA but I think it's still in the suggestion phase. To get v6 space now you would need to sign an RSA for the v6 space and pay the v6 fee's. There is a partial fee waiver in effect for ISP v6 allocations. N

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, John Palmer \(NANOG Acct\) wrote: Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space. Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. Nope. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee t

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 07/04/2010 17:09, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: > Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to > those who have IP4 legacy space. > > Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP > space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to us

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: > Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those > who have > IP4 legacy space. > > Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP > space. If not, is ARIN > saying we have to pay th

Re: Re: what about 48 bits?

That would be the AMP quick connect kit. Been there, done that, got the scars and war stories too. The most notable was that the "drops" from the actual coax down to the end-stations were of a non-trivial length, and the actual length added to your coax segment was double that (due to the loop

ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space. Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6?

Re: what about 48 bits?

Am 07.04.2010 um 17:47 schrieb Joe Greco: > There were several proprietary solutions to the 10base2 conundrum, > I can't remember the name of the one I was most familiar with, but it > eliminated all that stuff by using a molded cable that had a BNC on > one end, contained dual RG cables inside a

Re: Best Practice: 2routers, 2isp, 1AS

I'll do some digging on "interface tracking" for cisco gear. thanks On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Dylan Ebner wrote: > You can still use vrrp in the inside. We have a similar configuration to what > you have defined. Two routers, 4 ISPs, BGP annoucing 2 /24's. We get partial > routes and pre

/31's again (Re: IPv6 Newbie)

On Tuesday 06 April 2010 08:10:14 pm Ricky Beam wrote: > That's the equiv of a /31 in IPv4. Do you use /31's for p-t-p links in > your IPv4 network(s)? Yes, like many others (there was a thread on this on NANOG towards the end of January, no? Yes; started 1/22/2010 by Seth Mattinen; I don't have

RE: Best Practice: 2routers, 2isp, 1AS

Jack- We did discuss this when designing our solution. In then end we decided not to introduce another routing protocol to our enviornment. We rely exclusivly on BGP and EIGRP. It may not be the best solution, but servicability is also important. Dylan -Original Message- From: Jack

Re: what about 48 bits?

> I thought that was just me. My first IT job was developing credit- > card systems on VAXen. We had the office flood-wired with 10base2 > in one long bus - at locations where there wasn't a PC yet, there > was just a faceplace with two BNC connectors, and a tiny patch > lead between them. >

Re: Best Practice: 2routers, 2isp, 1AS

Could also just push default into OSPF from both ends (assuming you have the iBGP between both borders) if your goal is redundancy. -Jack Carrozzo On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Dylan Ebner wrote: > You can still use vrrp in the inside. We have a similar configuration to what > you have defin

Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > They are now using the phrase "Open > Internetworking" to describe their stance on the issue. How very sensible of ISOC. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)

Re: IPv6 Newbie

Ricky Beam wrote (on Apr 06): > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:20:26 -0400, shake righa wrote: > >Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections? > > That's the equiv of a /31 in IPv4. Do you use /31's for p-t-p links > in your IPv4 network(s)? > > (Yes, I've used /31's before, but only

Re: interop show network (was: legacy /8)

In a message written on Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:12:48AM -0400, Brandon Ross wrote: > The suggestion was to run a "v6 only network". Does anyone on the NANOG > list believe that v6 is at all ready to be run without any v4 > underpinnings and provide a real service to a customer base? Is it read

Re: what about 48 bits?

> This reminds of me of the failure-mode-within-a-failure-mode of 10b2 > with vaxstation2000's using vms's vaxcluster software. Unplugging the > 10b2 gave you a window of about 10 seconds before one by one every > vaxstation2000 would bugcheck. I was always rather astonished that > nobody at DEC ei

Re: Hubs on a NIC (was:Re: what about 48 bits?)

> On Wednesday 07 April 2010 07:18:57 am Joe Greco wrote: > > To me, this is a Dilbert-class engineering failure. I would imagine that > > if you could implement a hub on the network card, the same chip(s) would > > work in an external tin can with a separate power supply. Designing a > > product

Re: interop show network

> The suggestion was to run a "v6 only network". Does anyone on the NANOG > list believe that v6 is at all ready to be run without any v4 > underpinnings and provide a real service to a customer base? If you're an MPLS provider (as we are), the lack of IPv6 LDP is a major showstopper. Steinar

Re: interop show network (was: legacy /8)

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:12:48 -0400 (EDT) Brandon Ross wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort of > > testing isn't done at interop? Or is it just sad that v6 isn't so close > > to being ready? Or is it both? > > The

Re: what about 48 bits?

On 04/07/2010 04:18 AM, Joe Greco wrote: To me, this is a Dilbert-class engineering failure. I would imagine that if you could implement a hub on the network card, the same chip(s) would work in an external tin can with a separate power supply. Designing a product that actually exhibits a worse

Re: what about 48 bits?

On 04/07/2010 04:18 AM, Joe Greco wrote: To me, this is a Dilbert-class engineering failure. I would imagine that if you could implement a hub on the network card, the same chip(s) would work in an external tin can with a separate power supply. Designing a product that actually exhibits a worse

Re: interop show network (was: legacy /8)

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:12:48AM -0400, Brandon Ross wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Eliot Lear wrote: > > >If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort of > >testing isn't done at interop? Or is it just sad that v6 isn't so close > >to being ready? Or is it both? > > The su

Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 08:21, Mark Smith wrote: > So, there's the problem. According to the above, I'm both for, and > against, Network Neutrality. > > One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against > Network Neutrality is defining exactly what it is. ISOC has gone a step

Hubs on a NIC (was:Re: what about 48 bits?)

On Wednesday 07 April 2010 07:18:57 am Joe Greco wrote: > To me, this is a Dilbert-class engineering failure. I would imagine that > if you could implement a hub on the network card, the same chip(s) would > work in an external tin can with a separate power supply. Designing a > product that actu

Re: interop show network (was: legacy /8)

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Eliot Lear wrote: I remember the days of Ron Natalie running around with a cherry picker in San Jose, and the whole point of the network being to test interoperability, so that things would and did break (and then we fixed them). If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it b

Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:30:16 -0400 "Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote: > > > Seems on-topic, even though policy related. > It seems to me that "Net Neutrality" has been conflagrate

Re: interop show network (was: legacy /8)

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Eliot Lear wrote: If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort of testing isn't done at interop? Or is it just sad that v6 isn't so close to being ready? Or is it both? The suggestion was to run a "v6 only network". Does anyone on the NANOG list beli

Re: interop show network (was: legacy /8)

On 4/5/10 6:02 AM, Brandon Ross wrote: Seriously? You do realize that the InteropNet actually has to provide a real service to the exhibitors and attendees of the show, right? This year's network will support v6, but a v6-only network is just not a practical way to supply real network connec

RE: Best Practice: 2routers, 2isp, 1AS

You can still use vrrp in the inside. We have a similar configuration to what you have defined. Two routers, 4 ISPs, BGP annoucing 2 /24's. We get partial routes and prepend on 3 of the isps to only use our primary. Our primary is delivered via fiber and the backup isps are delivered via copper

RE: interop show network (was: legacy /8)

Might want to double check you aren't filtering, as parts of 1/8 and 2/8 have been intermittently announced by RIR's in debogonizing efforts over the last few months. Routing wise, this really isn't different from the space being assigned - better to clear up any filtering and identify routing pr

Re: what about 48 bits?

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:02:12 -0400 joel jaeggli wrote: > > Ah, but what _caused_ Ethernet to become ubiquitous, given the > > price was initially comparable? > > Early standardization. In one of my other favorite books, Gigabit Ethernet, Rich Seifert says: "[...] IBM was the only computer *s

Re: what about 48 bits?

> In article <201004071023.o37antww018...@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco > writes > > >>interoperability and backwards compatibility were the tipping points. > > > >Ah, yes, backwards compatibility: implementing the fantastic feature of > >breaking the network... > > By "backwards compatibility" I

Re: what about 48 bits?

In article <201004071023.o37antww018...@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco writes interoperability and backwards compatibility were the tipping points. Ah, yes, backwards compatibility: implementing the fantastic feature of breaking the network... By "backwards compatibility" I mean the ability t

Re: what about 48 bits?

> For me, as an SME user, I started using Ethernet when Dlink introduced > an ISA card [DE205] which had a 4-port hub built in (actually 5-port if > you counted the internal one), at not a great deal more than a normal > 10Base-T card. I think it was about $250, when a typical desktop PC was >

Re: what about 48 bits?

In article <4bbbf070.6000...@sprunk.org>, Stephen Sprunk writes Ah, but what _caused_ Ethernet to become ubiquitous, given the price was initially comparable? For me, as an SME user, I started using Ethernet when Dlink introduced an ISA card [DE205] which had a 4-port hub built in (actually 5