On 4/18/2010 9:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Franck Martin wrote:
Anybody has better projections? What's the plan?
My guess is that end user access will be more and more NAT444:ed (CGN)
while at the same time end users will get more and more IPv6 access (of
all types),
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Franck Martin wrote:
Anybody has better projections? What's the plan?
My guess is that end user access will be more and more NAT444:ed (CGN)
while at the same time end users will get more and more IPv6 access (of
all types), and over a period of time more and more of the
joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/18/2010 6:28 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>> Reality is that as soon as SSL web servers and SSL-capable web browsers
>> have support for name-based virtual hosts, the number of IPv4 addresses
>> required will drop. Right now, you need 1 IP address for 1 SSL site;
>> SN
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010, joel jaeggli wrote:
> my load balancer needs 16 ips for every million simultaneous
> connections, so does yours.
Only because it hasn't broken the spec further. :)
adrian
On 4/18/2010 6:28 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Franck Martin wrote:
Sure the internet will not die...
But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network will not have
completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what will happen?
Reality is that as soon as SSL web ser
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> Franck Martin wrote:
>> Sure the internet will not die...
>>
>> But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network will not
>> have completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what will happen?
>>
>
> Reality is t
On 4/18/10 8:28 PM, "Patrick Giagnocavo" wrote:
> Reality is that as soon as SSL web servers and SSL-capable web browsers
> have support for name-based virtual hosts, the number of IPv4 addresses
> required will drop.
And if Internet history teaches us one thing, it's that end users replace
outd
In a message written on Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:08:23PM +1200, Franck Martin
wrote:
> And doing guess-o-matic extrapolation, it will take another 3 years before we
> reach 10,000 ASN advertising IPv6 networks. That will be 33% of ASN. With the
> impending running out of IPv4 starting next year,
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Apr 18, 2010, at 21:28, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Franck Martin wrote:
Sure the internet will not die...
But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network
will not have completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So
w
Franck Martin wrote:
> Sure the internet will not die...
>
> But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network will not
> have completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what will happen?
>
Reality is that as soon as SSL web servers and SSL-capable web browsers
have sup
>> hint: those asns have ipv4
> And... contrary to Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.
then what are these diamonds on the soles of my shoes?
> But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network will
> not have completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what
> will happen?
as dual-stack requires as many ipv4 addresses as there are ipv6
interfaces, this question is rubbish
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Have you checked cyclops and other BGP announcement tracking systems
to see if it might have been a short-lived whack-a-mole short prefix hijack
(pop up, announce block, send burst of spam, remove announcement, disappear
again)?
Maybe I'm just tired a
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Sure the internet will not die...
>
> But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network
>will not have completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network.
>So what will happen?
Hi Franck,
Zero-sum game. Deploying a new IPv4 add
On Apr 18, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> And doing guess-o-matic extrapolation, it will take another 3 years
>> before we reach 10,000 ASN advertising IPv6 networks. That will be 33%
>> of ASN. With the impending running out of IPv4 starting next year,
>> seems to me we are not going to
Sure the internet will not die...
But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network will not have
completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what will happen?
- Original Message -
From: "Randy Bush"
To: "Franck Martin"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, 19 April
On 4/18/2010 16:02, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:15 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 16:45 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting; I see similar results for my address space. Two
>>> addresses, one of which hasn't been attached to a machine for a d
> And doing guess-o-matic extrapolation, it will take another 3 years
> before we reach 10,000 ASN advertising IPv6 networks. That will be 33%
> of ASN. With the impending running out of IPv4 starting next year,
> seems to me we are not going to make it in an orderly fashion?
hint: those asns have
I'm looking at
http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2Fvar%2Fdata%2Fbgp%2Fv6%2Fas2.0%2Fbgp-as-count.txt&descr=Unique+ASes&ylabel=Unique+ASes&range=Full&StartDate=&EndDate=&yrange=Auto&ymin=&ymax=&Width=1&Height=1&with=Step&color=auto&logscale=log
I see the rate of grow is logarithmical
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:15 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 16:45 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> Interesting; I see similar results for my address space. Two
>> addresses, one of which hasn't been attached to a machine for a decade
>> and the other a virtual IP on a web ser
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 16:45 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> Interesting; I see similar results for my address space. Two
> addresses, one of which hasn't been attached to a machine for a decade
> and the other a virtual IP on a web server where the particular IP
> never emits connections. Magnitude
On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:39 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> You can balance over DSL by putting different L2TPv3 tunnels over each
> physical device and agg it at someplace with real connections and
> such. It's possible to do it with GRE or OpenVPN too, but much less
> classy.
As Jack points out, "aggr
22 matches
Mail list logo
