On 2/11/11 6:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is
>>> already underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the
>>>
On Feb 11, 2011, at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> I don't want to accidentally encourage an urban legend or rumor. (For
> example, I can't find verification to the rumor that ARIN rejected a
> request from LTE providers for IPv4 space and instead told them to go
> straight to IPv6.
Not quite
On 2/11/11 8:59 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 2/11/2011 11:28 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> My apologies for the error, it will actually be a 32 digit system, and
>> we're switching to base-16, so all phones will have to be replaced
>> with phones supporting 0-9A-F.
>
> Well, they already do, you just need
On 2/11/2011 11:28 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> My apologies for the error, it will actually be a 32 digit system, and
> we're switching to base-16, so all phones will have to be replaced
> with phones supporting 0-9A-F.
Well, they already do, you just need a military phone or a linesman's
handset to g
On 2/11/2011 10:17 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Bah, I substitute your short sighted 12 digits with 40 digit dialing!
However, because the numbers are too long to remember, you only have
to speak or type in the name of someone you want to call, and 15
digits can be assigned to every household or bus
On 2/11/2011 9:54 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Bates"
On 2/11/2011 9:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you want to compare masses, IPv4 = 7 liters of water.
IPv6 = EARTH, including all rocks, trees, oceans, lakes, puddles,
etc.
Was trying to explain thing
On Feb 11, 2011, at 15:43, Fred Baker wrote:
> Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is
> likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one. Set-top
> boxes are generally IPv4; anyone with a TV is likely to need to upgrade at
> least the software.
- Original Message -
> From: "Jack Bates"
> On 2/11/2011 9:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > If you want to compare masses, IPv4 = 7 liters of water.
> > IPv6 = EARTH, including all rocks, trees, oceans, lakes, puddles,
> > etc.
>
> Was trying to explain things to a telco VP today. Final
On 2/11/2011 9:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you want to compare masses, IPv4 = 7 liters of water.
IPv6 = EARTH, including all rocks, trees, oceans, lakes, puddles,
etc.
Was trying to explain things to a telco VP today. Finally settled on,
"The Internet is out of 10 digit phone numbers.
On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 11:56 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I think that it will not be long
>> before the internet is an IPv6 ocean with islands of IPv4
>
> My company made up some t-shirts for a conference last year. We
> brainstormed the texts. I e
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 17:52 -0500, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> > p.s. with apologies to any honest marketers. All 2 of you..
> What's the difference between a used car salesman and a network equipment
> salesman?
>
> The used care salesman knows when he's lying to you :)
And the used car saleman probab
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I'll start..
>
> Hurricane Electric Happily and readily provided me IPv6 Transit on
> request.
> Layer42 Happily and readily provided me IPv6 Transit
> on request.
>
> Owen
I'll second that--I've had native v6 con
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 11:56 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think that it will not be long
> before the internet is an IPv6 ocean with islands of IPv4
My company made up some t-shirts for a conference last year. We
brainstormed the texts. I ended up with a sort of haiku:
out of the puddle
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Peter Lothberg wrote:
...
> (My mother has had IPv6 since 2007, and she lives in the boonies!)
Just now catching up...and don't take this wrong way, Peter, but your
mother has more bandwidth and better connectivity than many
countries (and some continents!) do. :-
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is
already underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the
native protocol and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol and
> IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>
I'm writing an article wher
On 2/11/2011 6:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
They have had a #@!@ decade to add IPv6 support. They shouldn't need
anymore time. Part of the reason we are in this mess is their delay
in delivering products.
Nah. The network side of things probably won't be too bad. Corporate
world will have it
On 2/11/2011 5:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
No, you grossly underestimate the motivation that will exist to get the
eyeball networks v6 capable.
eyeball networks... we hack and patch them together. Silly putty is very
useful. IPv6 rollouts are no different. Just more silly putty.
IPv4 suppo
In message <4d55abce.7030...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/11/2011 3:31 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> > "IPv6 is foundational to the next-generation Internet, enabling a
> > range of new services and improved user experiences."
> >
> > Apparently they see IPv6 as some "next-generation Inte
ML wrote:
Interesting. Do you know which wireless solution they went with?
Licensed/Unlicensed spectrum?
I am sorry, I only know what I quoted.
You can try and ask someone at Cruzio.
Greetings,
Jeroen
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-
On 2/10/2011 11:37 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
A high-speed/high-bandwidth wireless link connects the Cruzio 877 Cedar
facility with the Equinix San Jose facility via Mount Umunhum to provide
a wireless failover to the fiber in event of a fiber outage.
Interesting. Do you know which wireless
On Feb 11, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:20:59 -0500, George Bonser wrote:
>> The thing is that a very few networks account for a very large amount of
>> traffic.
>
> Traffic has to have two end points. Just because the content source supports
> IPv6 does not me
>
>>> There is no hackery require to make IPv4 work in LTE. LTE supports
>>> IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6 bearers all the same... its just an option from
>>> the core perspective, handset / chipset makers like to limit the
>>> options to keep cost and variability down.
>>>
>> My understanding (admitte
On 2/11/2011 13:49, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
> If only Cisco would sell "software only" support. 3rd party smartNet
> alternatives are nice for parts replacement. They suck for support, imho,
> especially, when it comes down to declaring a problem to be a bug.
> On quite a few occasions I found bugs
>
>
> p.s. with apologies to any honest marketers. All 2 of you..
>
>
What's the difference between a used car salesman and a network equipment
salesman?
The used care salesman knows when he's lying to you :)
> So riddle me this - what CPE stuff were they giving out in 2009 that
> was already v6-able? (and actually *tested* as being v6-able, rather
> than "It's supposed to work but since we don't do v6 on the live net,
> nobody's ever actually *tried* it...")
I would venture to say the same as today's
Is there any magic incantation required to get a Level 3 sales contact?
Business must be booming for them not to return a call.
On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
> Not true. Two of my former employers went to ARIN every year or two and
> received blocks around a /16 in size, specifically for use on global IP
> networks
> that did not intend to ever announce those addresses on the Internet. There
> are se
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:21:49 PST, George Bonser said:
> That is a different question. People are always moving, for example,
> turning in their old CPE and getting new. Old ones break and need to be
> replaced with a new one. Let's say the gear they have been handing out
> over the past couple o
>
> Fixing the source (be it Facebook, Youtube, or netflix) is rather
> simple
> in concept -- it's just one network, and doesn't require touching
> millions
> of devices. Transit networks are hit-n-miss, but is becoming less of
a
> burden. The CPE on the other hand is a whole other mess... ther
On 02/11/2011 10:46 AM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-for-marketers-048657/
I can hear people, say oh no
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
Hmm, I recognize
On 2/11/2011 3:41 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
In bridge mode, any modem will do. It's when the modem is also the
router (which is most cases today) that it will need attention to
support IPv6. (in bridge mode, you'll have to fix whatever it's plugged
into, but that's the customer's problem... off to
This report has been generated at Fri Feb 11 21:11:54 2011 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: 03-Feb-11 -to- 10-Feb-11 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS47331 27931 1.5% 8.6 -- TTNET TTNet A.S.
2 - AS13609 20873 1.1% 80.0
> One example I heard was a generic financial exchange connected to
> perhaps a hundred other companies. Those companies also connect to the
> Internet but the exchange itself does not. It's valuable for the
> exchange to use addressing which will not conflict with any of its
> customers' RFC1918 u
If only Cisco would sell "software only" support. 3rd party smartNet
alternatives are nice for parts replacement. They suck for support, imho,
especially, when it comes down to declaring a problem to be a bug.
On quite a few occasions I found bugs in IOS and TAC submitted those as bugs
and fixed th
On 2/11/2011 16:26, Michael Loftis wrote:
> Cisco is making noises that they'll eventually be restricting software
> access to ONLY those devices which have an active SmartNet contract
> associated to your CCO account. I don't know where this currently
> stands, and it sure will be a huge pain in
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
>>> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol
>>> and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>>>
>>> In the WiMa
> Using public address space for private networking is a gross misuse of the
> resource.
No it is not. IP was invented to enable internetworking. The IPv4
address registry
was set up so that anyone who wanted to use IP for internetworking could get
unique addresses. The key here, is internetworkin
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:20:59 -0500, George Bonser
wrote:
The thing is that a very few networks account for a very large amount of
traffic.
Traffic has to have two end points. Just because the content source
supports IPv6 does not mean the content request will be. That's the
"millions of
- Original Message -
> From: "George Bonser"
> To: "Franck Martin" , "Fred Baker"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, 12 February, 2011 10:31:42 AM
> Subject: RE: IPv6 is on the marketers radar
> > > They missed an important point.
> > >
> > > > Who Will Be Impacted: For more consum
On 2/11/2011 3:31 PM, George Bonser wrote:
"IPv6 is foundational to the next-generation Internet, enabling a
range of new services and improved user experiences."
Apparently they see IPv6 as some "next-generation Internet" thing.
It isn't.
Reread what they wrote. IPv6 is "foundational" to th
> > They missed an important point.
> >
> > > Who Will Be Impacted: For more consumers, there will be negligible
> > > impact. "The ISPs will be handling much of this,” said Leo Vegoda,
> a
> > > researcher with ICANN. (via TechNewsWorld). Some technology users
> > > may experience some glitches, s
Cisco is making noises that they'll eventually be restricting software
access to ONLY those devices which have an active SmartNet contract
associated to your CCO account. I don't know where this currently
stands, and it sure will be a huge pain in my rear if/when it happens.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011
>>>
>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
>> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol
>> and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>>
>> In the WiMax case (Gee, thanks, SPRINT), things are a bit murkier, b
- Original Message -
> From: "Fred Baker"
> To: "Franck Martin"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, 12 February, 2011 9:43:56 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 is on the marketers radar
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> > http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-for-marketers-048657/
>
>
> I can hear people, say oh no
>
> Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
Hmm, I recognize a lot of that article. If
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-for-marketers-048657/
>
>
> I can hear people, say oh no
>
> Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
They missed an important point.
> Who Will
Just interested in other peoples experience to companies offering alternatives
to SmartNet?
Pros/Cons/Tradeoffs?
We currently have a mix of SmartNet and internal parts supply.
John
__
John Macleod
Alentus UK Limited
Seymour House
South Street
Bromley
BR1 1RH
+44 (0)208 315 5800
+44 (0)208
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>>
>>> I don't know about that. Yes, v4 will be around for a long time but
>>> considering the oligopolies we have in both eyeball and content
>>> networks, ones a dozen or so very large net
Comcast, nor the other large MSOs, are not as monolithic as they may appear
from the outside. In most cases the large MSOs are divided into regions that
are more or less autonomous and that doesn't count the outlier properties that
haven't been brought into the fold of the region they are in
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-for-marketers-048657/
I can hear people, say oh no
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 6:38 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>>
>>> ISPs know it takes years to move a customer base. They should have
>>> been ready years ago. They still arn't ready. I was asking for
>>> what features to look for in a new CPE so t
On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> I don't know about that. Yes, v4 will be around for a long time but
>> considering the oligopolies we have in both eyeball and content
>> networks, ones a dozen or so very large networks switch, there is the
>> vast majority of Internet traff
On Feb 11, 2011, at 6:38 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> ISPs know it takes years to move a customer base. They should have
>> been ready years ago. They still arn't ready. I was asking for
>> what features to look for in a new CPE so that it won't need to be
>> replaced when they turn on IPv6 an
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 APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
Lucky you.
.as
On 11 Feb 2011, at 11:42, Josh Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Arturo Servin
> wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad
>>> wrote:
Amusingly enough, I personally (along with
Please see
http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog52/callforpresent.php
Dates of interest:
Presentation Abstracts and Draft Slides Due: 14 March 2011
Final Slides Due:16 May
2011
Draft Program Published:
Hello Everyone:
If you receive an auto-responder message to a NANOG posting, please forward a
copy to adm...@nanog.org and we'll set the account to no-mail and contact the
sender. If you don't send us a copy we won't see it necessarily, so feel free
to do so.
Regards,
Mike
NANOG Communicatio
I will be out of the office until Monday,Februay 21st. I will be checking
email daily and, there's always the cell phone.
METCOM: Any IT concerns can be handled by Christin Edwards at 301-373-4733 Ext
262 or, email her at: cedwa...@metcom.org
CALS: IT needs should be addressed to Ronny or Pau
Hello All:
I need to find rack space in data centers in Germany and China, although the
China requirement is more for low(er) latency access into China rather than
needing to be physically in-country. Both data centers have to have the local
equivalent of a SAS 70 Type II validation.
Please f
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Scott Helms
> wrote:
> > Agreed, V4 traffic levels are likely to drop and stay at low levels
> for
> > decades.
>
> I seriously doubt v4 traffic is going to fall off a cliff. That would
> require IPv6 adoption on a large scale over a relatively short period.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman
> wrote:
>> There is no one universal "global routing table". They probably appear in
>> someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
>
> Using public address space for private netwo
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Agreed, V4 traffic levels are likely to drop and stay at low levels for
> decades.
I seriously doubt v4 traffic is going to fall off a cliff. That would
require IPv6 adoption on a large scale over a relatively short period.
To date, nothing
On Friday 11 February 2011 15:00:57 Scott Helms wrote:
> While Facebook working over IPv6 will be a big deal you won't get all of
> their traffic since a significant fraction of that traffic is from
> mobile devices which are going to take much longer than PCs to get to
> using IPv6 in large num
I don't know about that. Yes, v4 will be around for a long time but
considering the oligopolies we have in both eyeball and content
networks, ones a dozen or so very large networks switch, there is the
vast majority of Internet traffic right there. It will be around for a
very long time handli
ISPs know it takes years to move a customer base. They should have
been ready years ago. They still arn't ready. I was asking for
what features to look for in a new CPE so that it won't need to be
replaced when they turn on IPv6 and got this as a answer. It really
isn't helpful.
Mark,
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad
>> wrote:
>>> Amusingly enough, I personally (along with others) made arguments along
>>> these lines back in 1995 or so when the IAB was c
On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad wrote:
>> Amusingly enough, I personally (along with others) made arguments along
>> these lines back in 1995 or so when the IAB was coming out with
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1814.txt. Given the
There are major GSM-land wireless operators who provide service to devices like
Novatel's line of pocket-size WLAN hotspots.
You can just buy one and stick a SIM in it, but some of the ops offer them as
part of a business user package. I hope that means they get a proper IP or more
handed out
70 matches
Mail list logo
