(that's next winter, right?)
I've just seen a TV ad for Duke Nukem Forever, in a Hulu airing of
The Daily Show.
Cheers,
-- jr 'Finally??' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RF
On 15 jun 2011, at 7:33, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Bottom line, I expect it's easier to get cooperation from OS vendors and BIOS
> vendors to make changes
> because experience has shown that they are more willing to do so than
> vertical software vendors.
> As such, yes, I'd like to see some harmles
On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:16:10 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The point of /64 is to support automatic configuration and incredibly sparse
>> host addressing.
>> It is not intended to create stupidly large broadcast domains.
>
> Several IETF (and NA
On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:00 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:44:22 -0400, Iljitsch van Beijnum
> wrote:
>> BTW, does this broken software run over IPv6, anyway?
>
> Poorly designed network plus poorly designed software... I don't know which
> chicken came first, and it doesn't matt
On Jun 14, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 15 jun 2011, at 0:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Yes, the right solution would be to at least separate the VLANs and clean up
>> this
>> mess. However, due to software packages that need to talk to each other over
>> common local broadc
I think this would be helpful.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Pavely [mailto:para...@nac.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:08 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?
I was thinking the same thing. Good call :)
Ryan Pavely
Hi Chris
Does Azure support IPv6 at this time?
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Palmer [mailto:christopher.pal...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 2:20 PM
To: Murphy, Jay, DOH; Jared Mauch; Shahid Shafi
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: RE: Thank you Microsoft (and othe
On Jun 13, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> On 12 jun 2011, at 15:45, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
Like I said before, that would pollute the network with many multicasts
which can seriously degrade wifi performance.
>
> > BTW, does this broken software run over IPv6, anyway?
>
> Poorly designed network plus poorly designed software... I don't know
which
> chicken came first, and it doesn't matter.
>
> IPv6 is totally different barnyard. Build the v6 network properly -- one
> gateway (one router, vrrp, whateve
On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I see no reason that additional DHCPv6 options would have to fragment the
> installed
> base or perpetuate the lack of agreed upon DHCPv6 behavior. In fact, I think
> that
> adding these options could allow for a set of rules that would be accep
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:44:22 -0400, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
BTW, does this broken software run over IPv6, anyway?
Poorly designed network plus poorly designed software... I don't know
which chicken came first, and it doesn't matter.
IPv6 is totally different barnyard. Build the v6 ne
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:16:10 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
The point of /64 is to support automatic configuration and incredibly
sparse host addressing.
It is not intended to create stupidly large broadcast domains.
Several IETF (and NANOG) discussions say otherwise. While current
hardware do
On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Seth Mos wrote:
>
> Op 14 jun 2011, om 19:04 heeft Ray Soucy het volgende geschreven:
>
>> My guess is within the next year we'll see something pop up that does this.
>
> Ehm, It's already here, you searched google right?
>
> I finished it 4 months ago. And a numb
On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> Yes... The key word there is perception. The question is whether it makes
>> more sense to put effort into correcting mis-perceptions or to put the effort
>> into providing workarounds which provide a sub-par networking experience
>> to the en
On 15 jun 2011, at 0:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Yes, the right solution would be to at least separate the VLANs and clean up
> this
> mess. However, due to software packages that need to talk to each other over
> common local broadcast across that boundary, this isn't possible in this
> particular
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:00:22 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You would need an AWFUL lot of hosts for this to add up to a few 100pps (or
>> even 10pps) of multicast traffic.
>
> You're missing the point... most WAPs are horrible with multicast. It
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:02:18 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> That was kind of my point. You are unlikely to encounter such a large L2
>> domain outside of an exchange point.
>
> I've seen such large networks in private industry (and governements, n
On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Ben Jencks wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Then use RA and move on. However, please understand that yours
>> is not the only environment and that there are real-world scenarios
>> where having the router-guys dictate the host configurat
On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> What is needed is:
>>
>> - Native RA Guard in switches
>> - Native DHCPv6 Snooping in switches
>> - Native RA Guard in WAPs
>> - Native DHCPv6 Snoo
On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> I think that's a market problem rather than a routing problem. In the
> long term, If we had separation of L2 and L3 service providers there
> would be very, very few who need L3 redundancy; and that amount would
> be fine using BGP.
>
ROFLMAO...
Yes... The key word there is perception. The question is whether it makes
more sense to put effort into correcting mis-perceptions or to put the effort
into providing workarounds which provide a sub-par networking experience
to the end user.
IMNSHO, it is better to put effort into education. I'
On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> It's a security and operational issue.
>
> The perception is that it's easier to monitor, manage, and filter one
> address per host instead of 3. For most in the enterprise world it's
> a non-starter to have that setup; even if that perception is
- Original Message -
> From: "Jay Ashworth"
> http://www.outages.org/index.php/Network_ops_group_websites
And silly me, I didn't *check the link* before posting that. Fixed now.
Sorry for the noise.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@
Op 14 jun 2011, om 19:04 heeft Ray Soucy het volgende geschreven:
> My guess is within the next year we'll see something pop up that does this.
Ehm, It's already here, you searched google right?
I finished it 4 months ago. And a number of commercial platforms already
support it. Although Owen
In a message written on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 05:01:24PM -0400, Ben Jencks wrote:
> > Lastly, there's a hidden bit here many people haven't dealt with
> > yet in lab networks. In IPv4 critical environments it's typical
> > to use HSRP or VRRP to provide a single gateway across two routers.
> > The
Hi NANOG,
>From June 20th to July 20th Georgia Tech will conduct an Internet
routing study using AS-PATH poisoning. We will insert AS numbers into
one of our announcements to route around some networks.
The study will *only* affect the the Georgia Tech prefix
184.164.224.0/21. The prefix serves *
On Jun 14, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 02:00:35PM -0400, Ben Jencks
> wrote:
>> This has always confused me. What aspect of host configuration is the router
>> providing that's so problematic? The prefix, which has to match on the
>> rou
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:41, Ray Soucy wrote:
>
> The energy in this thread should be focused on switch vendors to
> actually implement L2 security features for IPv6, which is usually an
> easy upgrade; rather than calling for all host implementations of IPv6
> to work differently; which will ta
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:00:22 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
You would need an AWFUL lot of hosts for this to add up to a few 100pps
(or even 10pps) of multicast traffic.
You're missing the point... most WAPs are horrible with multicast. It
doesn't matter if it's v4 or v6, at L2, multicast is mu
In a message written on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 02:00:35PM -0400, Ben Jencks wrote:
> This has always confused me. What aspect of host configuration is the router
> providing that's so problematic? The prefix, which has to match on the router
> and host in order for anything to work anyway? The indi
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:02:18 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
That was kind of my point. You are unlikely to encounter such a large L2
domain outside of an exchange point.
I've seen such large networks in private industry (and governements, not
just the US) several times. And IPv6 has been design
On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:38 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:04:11 EDT, Ray Soucy said:
>
>> A better solution; and the one I think that will be adopted in the
>> long term as soon as vendors come into the fold, is to swap out
>> RFC1918 with ULA addressing, and swap out
Really -- just go play with it. I started by setting up a
tunnelbroker.net account at home.
A majority of the packet slapping functionality of routers work just
fine. It's when you get into things like applications, load balancing,
NAT64/DNS64 where things start to get a little buggy. And you'll n
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> What is needed is:
>
>- Native RA Guard in switches
>- Native DHCPv6 Snooping in switches
>- Native RA Guard in WAPs
>- Native DHCPv6 Snooping in WAPs
>- Additional options to D
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Then use RA and move on. However, please understand that yours
> is not the only environment and that there are real-world scenarios
> where having the router-guys dictate the host configuration is considered
> unacceptable at best.
This has alway
I think that's a market problem rather than a routing problem. In the
long term, If we had separation of L2 and L3 service providers there
would be very, very few who need L3 redundancy; and that amount would
be fine using BGP.
Metro Ethernet services are making it a bit easier to accomplish this
On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:28 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> I think in the long term telling everyone to jump into the BGP table
>> is not sustainable; and not operationally consistent with the majority
>> of SMB networks.
>>
>> A better solution;
It's a security and operational issue.
The perception is that it's easier to monitor, manage, and filter one
address per host instead of 3. For most in the enterprise world it's
a non-starter to have that setup; even if that perception is a false
one.
Not sure I have the energy to re-hash the ti
Actually, a vastly inferior solution, but, it does have the attraction of
being able to continue to ignore the need for scalable routing for several
more years.
In reality, we need to solve the scalable routing problem at some point
and having everyone jump into the IPv6 BGP world for multihoming
On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> The energy in this thread should be focused on switch vendors to
> actually implement L2 security features for IPv6, which is usually an
> easy upgrade; rather than calling for all host implementations of IPv6
> to work differently; which will take
> Why do people insist on creating solutions where each host has
> exactly one IPv6
> address, instead of letting each host have *three* (in this case) - a
> ULA and
> two provider-prefixed addresses?
>
How does the upstream router control which address/path the client host use to
route?
-Rand
> Hi Ray,
>
> There's a nuance here you've missed.
>
> There are two main reasons for ULA inside the network:
>
> 1. Address stability (simplifies network management)
> 2. Source obfuscation (improves the depth of the security plan)
>
> Option 1: Obfuscation desired.
>
> ULA inside. NAT/PAT a
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:04:11 EDT, Ray Soucy said:
> A better solution; and the one I think that will be adopted in the
> long term as soon as vendors come into the fold, is to swap out
> RFC1918 with ULA addressing, and swap out PAT with NPT; then use
> policy routing to handle load balancing and
On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:18 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 14/06/2011 17:02, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> That was kind of my point. You are unlikely to encounter such a large L2
>> domain outside of an
>> exchange point.
>
> Indeed so. Apart from large enterprise LANs. And campus LANs. And badly
> de
I try to avoid the Obfuscation argument when I can.
I've seen people try to be smart by telling Law Enforcement that they
don't keep logs and can't point to which host was a problem behind a
NAT box, only to see Law Enforcement take all the PCs instead of the
one in question. So it's always made
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> I think in the long term telling everyone to jump into the BGP table
> is not sustainable; and not operationally consistent with the majority
> of SMB networks.
>
> A better solution; and the one I think that will be adopted in the
> long term as
Today you're probably correct. If you want to have more than one
provider reliably you pretty much need to be doing BGP; or have some
sort of primary-backup setup to fail over from one to the other; or
give each host a global address from each provider (really not
desirable in the majority of netw
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 03:00:27 -0800, Robert Lusby wrote:
I am however *terrified* of making that move. There is so many new
phrases, words, things to think about etc
You fears will significantly lower after you set up a separate lab and
play with it. With something as simple as a switch you c
The energy in this thread should be focused on switch vendors to
actually implement L2 security features for IPv6, which is usually an
easy upgrade; rather than calling for all host implementations of IPv6
to work differently; which will take a decade to implement and be a
band-aid at best; not a g
On 14/06/2011 17:02, Owen DeLong wrote:
That was kind of my point. You are unlikely to encounter such a large L2 domain
outside of an
exchange point.
Indeed so. Apart from large enterprise LANs. And campus LANs. And badly
designed large service provider LANs. And other types of large L2 d
On 14/06/2011 16:12, Ray Soucy wrote:
The point was you shouldn't base protocol design around the
possibility that someone might tell it to do something you don't want
it to do; otherwise you'll end up with a one-size-fits-all protocol
that has zero flexibility (and might not even be functional a
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:48 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> ND would be a far more frequent occurrence than DHCP requests.
>
> Of course, it was only partly related to the discussion, most likely the
> network which has problem with multicast would bre
Wow, I don't recall making it personal?
I have broken networks before by connecting miss-configured devices,
by the way, and I was a moron for doing so. I don't base my network
design decisions around preventing people with full access to
configure the network breaking it; but rather restrict the
- Original Message -
> From: "Santino Codispoti"
> Is there a nanogish group that covers AUS?
As it happens, we have a page *just* for this list at outages.org...
and Oz is, as you might expect, the first item on the list:
http://www.outages.org/index.php/Network_ops_group_websites
On 14 jun 2011, at 10:20, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On the AMSIX peering LAN there is more than 100pps of ND traffic (at least
> there was when we checked). Since they do not do IPv6 multicast intelligent
> handling (MLD snooping I guess) certain highend (legacy) router platforms run
> into t
la4prd4.mx.csod.com seems to be having trouble saying helo/ehlo and
disconnects after our welcome banner
Users think we're blocking training registration emails from your large
wholesale energy customer in the N.E. area; we're not.
Please get in touch. 860.823.4118 if email fails.
~JasonG
In a message written on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:20:07AM +0200, Mikael
Abrahamsson wrote:
> On the AMSIX peering LAN there is more than 100pps of ND traffic (at least
> there was when we checked). Since they do not do IPv6 multicast
> intelligent handling (MLD snooping I guess) certain highend (l
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
ND would be a far more frequent occurrence than DHCP requests.
Of course, it was only partly related to the discussion, most likely the
network which has problem with multicast would break first because of ND,
not because of DHCPv6 requests.
Also, I
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> You would need an AWFUL lot of hosts for this to add up to a few 100pps (or
>> even 10pps) of multicast traffic.
>
> On the AMSIX peering LAN there is more than 100pps of ND traffic (at least
On Jun 13, 2011, at 9:28 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The vastly better option is to obtain a prefix and ASN from ARIN and merely
>> trade BGP with your
>> upstream providers.
>
> My "(cheap) cable modem for general browsing" provider would
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
You would need an AWFUL lot of hosts for this to add up to a few 100pps
(or even 10pps) of multicast traffic.
On the AMSIX peering LAN there is more than 100pps of ND traffic (at least
there was when we checked). Since they do not do IPv6 multicast
int
--- santino.codisp...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Santino Codispoti
Is there a nanogish group that covers AUS?
--
First hit on a search engine: "australia network operator group".
www.ausnog.net
scott
Is there a nanogish group that covers AUS?
On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 09:45:01 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> In a message written on Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 01:04:41PM +0200, Iljitsch van
>> Beijnum wrote:
>>> Like I said before, that would pollute the network with many multicasts
>>> which can s
64 matches
Mail list logo
