I tend to think a /60 is a reasonable allocation for a residential user. In my
home I have two subnets and will in time likely add two more:
- general network access
- my office (required to be separate by Cisco Information Security policy)
- (future) would likely want routable separate ban
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:26:43 -0700
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> >> It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
> >> may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
> >>
> >> It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is al
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:48:47 -0400
Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 22, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
>
> >>
> >> Funny how so much concern is given to eliminating the possibility of end
> >> users returning for more space, yet for ISP's we have no
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:18:39 +0100
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 23/07/2010 01:17, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
> > unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the "IPv6 customer".
> >
> > "IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it isn't
Anyone have a good NetApp contact for the Bay Area (East Bay, to be exact).
I called their line today to try to get a quote (long story, but this
is not an opportunity for a VAR), but their voice mail thingee kept
punting me off and I never got to talk to a real person.
Thanks in advance
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 17:53 +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > And I'm not saying to forget about what we have learn with DHCP, in
> > fact DHCPv6 has many new and good features, but for many reasons,
> > autonconfiguration is good enough, and much more simple.
> [...]
> For our scenarios DHCPv6 i
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Positively Optimistic <
positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
> several customers that don't require public address space that could be
> moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move
On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:09 AM, André Edwards wrote:
> St. Maarten
Damn. That's next door. :-)
Cheers,
RAH
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 23 21:11:35 2010 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 15-Jul-10 -to- 22-Jul-10 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS472561076 4.4% 484.7 -- ODN SOFTBANK TELECOM Corp.
2 - AS35805 26163 1.9%
"Your subpoena is overly broad. Go back and specify port number and
timestamp. And read draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02, section
10."
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Lee
> -Original Message-
> From: Positively Optimistic [mailto:positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, Ju
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at]
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:38 PM
> To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
> "Home wifi router" vendors will do whatever it takes to make this w
On 23 Jul 2010, at 1:40, Ricky Beam wrote:
[...]
>> Do the complaints you receive include port numbers?
>
> I've never seen one that did. I've not even seen one with an exact
> timestamp.
>
> You would require the src and dst ip *and* port, plus the near exact
> timestamp of when the conne
> > I think it's
> > more reasonable to describe solutions for them than to rule their
> > problem out of order.
>
> In that, you are surely correct. But frankly, having read 4.3 I have a
> hard time taking it seriously as an early-stage IPv6 transition
> mechanism. It reads to me like pie in the
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
In short, why a /48 'Because we can!'.
I do not buy your argument "consumers expect a /48 so we'll get grief if
we don't give it to them." As others have pointed out, "consumers" don't
want IPv6, they want web surfing, playing games, and e-mail.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:59:41 -0400, Steven Bellovin
wrote:
Do the complaints you receive include port numbers?
I've never seen one that did. I've not even seen one with an exact
timestamp.
You would require the src and dst ip *and* port, plus the near exact
timestamp of when the connec
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
many small sensors, actuators and so.
I have no problems with g
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Funny how so much concern is given to eliminating the possibility of end users
returning for more space, yet for ISP's we have no real concern with what will
happen when they near depletion of their /32 what with /48s
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Positively Optimistic
wrote:
> How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
> several customers that don't require public address space that could be
> moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal
> liabilities..
Answ
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG and
the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For historical
On Jul 23, 2010, at 1:36 18PM, khatfi...@socllc.net wrote:
> Hello,
> From our past experience this can be accomplished without issue as long as
> you have good log records and tracking in place.
Do the complaints you receive include port numbers? Do you log the translation
for every TCP conn
We get them pretty often.
Always the same email with a different movie and IP. If its one of our
hotspots or "open" AP's. We just ignore it for the most part. If its a
res/commercial customer we contact them and let them know someone is
watching. Never has gone past the cookie cutter email we ge
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:11, Positively Optimistic <
positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
> several customers that don't require public address space that could be
> moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move du
Hello,
From our past experience this can be accomplished without issue as long as you
have good log records and tracking in place. Ensure you have long-term
retention for the logs to cover yourself.
Many ISP's are moving to this sort of environment simply due to the reasoning
stated.
-Kevin
How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
several customers that don't require public address space that could be
moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal
liabilities..
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
>
> Yes please -option d also known as option AB
> -it's the same as option b with addition of VRFs on the ASBRs
> -it might as well be viewed as a natural step between opt a and opt b
>
> -opt ab offers the same great control over the routes
Yes please -option d also known as option AB
-it's the same as option b with addition of VRFs on the ASBRs
-it might as well be viewed as a natural step between opt a and opt b
-opt ab offers the same great control over the routes advertised between ASes
as opt a -though provides for better scal
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> However, the fact is that various *extremely* large operators find themselves
> more or less forced into these scenarios by IPv4 exhaustion.
Hi Brian,
Respectfully, anyone betting on what the ISPs will be "forced" to do
is betting to l
> It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
> may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
>
> It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
> many small sensors, actuators and so.
I have no problems with giving the customer seve
On Jul 23, 2010, at 2:50 AM, Jens Link wrote:
> Owen DeLong writes:
>
>> In all reality:
>>
>> 1. NAT has nothing to do with security. Stateful inspection provides
>> security, NAT just mangles addresses.
>
> You know that, I know that and (hopefully) all people on this list know
> tha
If you are going to go multi-VLAN data plane (as opposed to multi-label)
then 10A will cause you scaling issues as you'll need multiple BGP peers
(or static routing),
I'd prefer to use
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kulmala-l3vpn-interas-option-d-02
which already has implementations, i.e
(alb
On 7/23/2010 9:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
> may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
>
> It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
> many small sensors, actuators and so.
Invitation to CARIBNOG 1
--
August 15th – 20th, 2010
Westin Hotel & Resort
144 Oyster Pond Road
St Maarten
--
Dear colleagues, members of the Lacnic community.
The Caribbean Network Operators Group (CARIBNOG) has the pl
It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
many small sensors, actuators and so.
The ISP "new" business is not just about more bandwidth bu
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And then next you can say ok, so /32 bits is big enough for your home, so
let's change it again, kill autoconfiguration, ask existing IPv6 users to
redo their addressing plans, renumber, etc., and use all the rest of the
bits for routing ?
I *really* don't understan
And then next you can say ok, so /32 bits is big enough for your home, so
let's change it again, kill autoconfiguration, ask existing IPv6 users to
redo their addressing plans, renumber, etc., and use all the rest of the
bits for routing ?
And so on, of course, where is the limit ? You should prop
Owen DeLong wrote:
Well, wouldn't it be better if the provider simply issued enough space to
make NAT66 unnecessary?
The thing is, IPv6 is 128 bits of address space, so a /64 for your home
*really* should be enough to have >1 machine online at a time.
It'll be a lot easier to change the s
Yes please I believe that what Michael have mentioned by the mpls NNI is
actually the RFC 2547bis Option 10A
And yes please as Chris mentioned this Option 10A is used mainly between two
different administrative domains (ISPs) because of the lack of trust and maybe
a sort of configuration simpli
On 23/07/2010 01:17, Mark Smith wrote:
Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the "IPv6 customer".
"IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it isn't the future, it's now."
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3
Owen DeLong writes:
> In all reality:
>
> 1.NAT has nothing to do with security. Stateful inspection provides
> security, NAT just mangles addresses.
You know that, I know that and (hopefully) all people on this list know
that. But NAT == security was and still is sold by many people.
Well said.
One more reason is transition mechanisms.
For example, 6to4, TBs, manual tunnels, those are just a few examples, which
use/provide /48.
We have today many customers using /48, which have already their own
internal addressing plans, or manual subnets configured internally.
Are you goi
> However, even then, there is no guarantee that the common denominator CPE for
> this service wont have NAT66 features, maybe even turned on by default.
I've tested a lot of CPE's and haven't come across one that supports NAT66,
they all do support DHCPv6 prefix delegation and actually most of
> "Home wifi router" vendors will do whatever it takes to make this work, so of
> course in your scenario they simply implement NAT66 (whether or not IETF
> folks think it is a good idea) however they see fit and nobody calls.
This will greatly help in deploying IPv6...here is another NAT becau
On 23 jul 2010, at 01:33, Matthew Walster wrote:
> On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Band wrote:
>> There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all
>> the up and downsides. Does anyone disagree?
>
> I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
> be
44 matches
Mail list logo
