David Miller wrote:
> So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
> enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
For example?
Masataka Ohta
Op 20 sep 2012, om 07:34 heeft Mark Andrews het volgende geschreven:
>
> In message
>
> , Jimmy Hess writes:
>
> The work to fix this on most OS is minimal. The work to ensure
> that it could be used safely over the big I Internet is enormous.
> It's not so much about making sure new equipme
In message
, Jimmy Hess writes:
> On 9/19/12, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> > Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with
> > IPv6 deployment been working out?
>
> "getting a single extra /4" is considered, not enough of a return
> to make the change.
>
> I don't accept
>
> There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be
> rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
> anything at all with 240/4, and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus
> far, if not for those, it could possibly be reopened as unicast IPv4,
> and be well-supported
>So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
Since it would require upgrading the IP stack on every host on the
internet, uh, no. If you're planning to do that, you might as well
make the upgrade handle IPv6.
>> and no quantity of pixie dust is going to
>> cause new sp
On 9/19/12, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with
> IPv6 deployment been working out?
"getting a single extra /4" is considered, not enough of a return
to make the change.
I don't accept that, but as far as rehabilitating 240/4, that lot
On 9/19/2012 11:33 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> TJ wrote:
>
>>> >> A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
>> > Really?
> With the Internet wide scope, yes, of course.
So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
Leo Vegoda wrote:
There was even a dedicated mailing list. But the drafts never made it beyond
drafts, which suggests there was not a consensus in favour of an extra 18
months of IPv4 space with dubious utility value because of issues with
deploy-and-forget equipment out in the wild.
The
TJ wrote:
>> A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
> Really?
With the Internet wide scope, yes, of course.
In general, as IPv6 was designed to make "ND uber Alles",
not "IP uber Alles", and ND was designed by a committee with
only ATM, Ethernet and PPP in mind, ND can not
In message <505a8828.9040...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 09/19/2012 15:36, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
>
> All the experts I consulted with told me that the effort to make this
> workable on the big-I Internet, not to m
On 09/19/2012 15:36, Joe Maimon wrote:
> So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
All the experts I consulted with told me that the effort to make this
workable on the big-I Internet, not to mention older private networks;
would be equivalent if not greater than the e
On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:50 pm, Joe Maimon wrote:
[…]
>>> So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
>>
>> 6 years of work
>
> What I said is that they knew they would have had at least 6 years or
> _more_ to rehabilitate it, had they made a serious effort at the time
On 9/19/12, John Osmon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:07:33AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> But your unconnected network, is unaffected.
> Ahh... But the network may not be unconnected. Just because *you*
> don't have a path to it doesn't mean others are similarly disconnected.
I'm aware of
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 06:46:54PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
>
> For these networks to have gateways which connect to the outside, you
> have to have an understanding of which IP networks are inside, and
> which IP networks are outside. Your proxy client then forwards
> connections to "outside" netwo
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:46:54 -0700, Jo Rhett said:
> You're all missing the point in grand style.
Given that the entire thread is based on somebody who missed the point
in totally grand style and managed to get press coverage of said missing
the point, I am starting to suspect that several people
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
>
>
Really?
If that is really your opinion, the entire conversation is a rather moot
point as I believe you and "pretty much the rest of the w
On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In the financial and/or brokerage communities, there are internal networks
> with enough 'high value'/sensitive information to justify "air gap"
> isolation from the outide world.
>
> Also, in those industries, there are 'semi-isolated' networks
William Herrin wrote:
> I think Masataka meant to say (and said previously) that the DHCP
> request from the wifi station is, like all packets from the wifi
> station to the AP, subject to wifi's layer 2 error recovery. It's not
> unicast but its subject to error recovery anyway.
Mostly correct.
> From: Jo Rhett
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:42:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
[[ sneck ]]
>
> And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't
> connected to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks for
> equipm
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:36:08 -0400, Joe Maimon said:
So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
6 years of work
What I said is that they knew they would have had at least 6 years or
_more_ to rehabilitate it, had they made a seri
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:36:08 -0400, Joe Maimon said:
> So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
6 years of work to accomplish something that would only buy us 16 /8s, which
would be maybe 2 year's supply, instead of actually deploying IPv6. And at the
end of the 2 ye
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Sean Harlow wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 04:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
>> As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
>> unicast.
>
> This didn't sound right, so I decided to test. With the three clients
>available to me (laptop running OS X 10.7
Doug Barton wrote:
We were already looking at the IPv4 runout problems when I was at IANA
in 2004. We already knew (in large part thanks to folks like Tony Hain
and Geoff Huston) that we'd run out in the 2010-2012 time frame, and a
lot of us pushed a lot of rocks up a lot of hills to get our
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:54:35 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> Sean Harlow wrote:
>
> >> As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
> >> unicast.
> >
> > This didn't sound right, so I decided to test.
>
> Your test is invalid.
You forgot to include a .jpg of Darth Vader playing bagpip
Imagine that you are the DWP. You're given a block of addresses, told
that they will be yours forever, plan your network accordingly, and
implement your plan.
Now, decades later, people are telling you that "forever" is over, and
you have to totally re-address your network because you have somethi
TJ wrote:
>> The only thing operators have to know about IPv6 is that IPv6, as is
>> currently specified, is not operational.
> I think it is safe to say that this is provably false.
You failed to do so.
> Are there opportunities for increased efficiency, perhaps ... however:
Congestion collap
Sean Harlow wrote:
>> As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
>> unicast.
>
> This didn't sound right, so I decided to test.
Your test is invalid.
> With the three
> clients available to me (laptop running OS X 10.7.4, phone
> running Android 4.0, and iPod running iOS 4.1.2
In article <450916d8-fa1d-4d43-be8f-451d50dd6...@privaterra.org> you write:
>Am I correct in assuming that the unused IP block would not be sold as
>is mentioned in the article, but instead be returned to RIPE to be
>reallocated?
Since there is no chance of either one happening, no.
R's,
John
On 19/09/2012 22:02, David Conrad wrote:
> Assuming for the sake of argument that the 51/8 is actually unused
> (which it apparently isn't), the UK gov't would be under no contractual
> obligation to return the address space to IANA (which is (arguably) the
> allocating registry, not RIPE) -- I bel
Robert,
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming that the unused IP block would not be sold as is
> mentioned in the article, but instead be returned to RIPE to be reallocated?
Assuming for the sake of argument that the 51/8 is actually unused (which it
app
Since I have gotten many off list responses..
I have a submitted an "Information Request" they sent me back the list which
is on their website of 24 shops within 75 miles. Looking for a little bit more
information/history, as two of them I called this morning I went to their
voicemail. Of co
As the subsequent discussion here shows, "unused" is a press inaccuracy.
The nets are in active use; much of that use is not publicly advertised, but
it's still in use.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:35 PM, "Robert Guerra" wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming th
Am I correct in assuming that the unused IP block would not be sold as
is mentioned in the article, but instead be returned to RIPE to be
reallocated?
Robert
On 18 Sep 2012, at 10:07, Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://paritynews.com/network/item/325-department-of-work-and-pensions-uk-in-possession
Those who argue that IPv4 addresses must be reclaimed seem to have
forgotten that even for small organizations, converting IPv4 address space
to RFC1918 addresses, or IPv6, is a huge task given the fixed IP addresses
of many devices (printers, copy machines, etc.), and even worse, the many
key bus
On 9/19/2012 10:52 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 9/19/12 10:42 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't
connected to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks
for equipment management, neither have I.
Plenty of people on this list have w
We are having trouble that seems to look like we are being throttled from one
of our production nets to Comcast's pop3 service (mail.comcast.net). Service
appears to work fine from other addresses in our network, just transactions
from one of our more active production source IPs seems to progre
On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
>> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't publicly
>> routable?
>>
> Because doing anything else is Harmful! There's even an RFC that says so!
> http://tools.ietf.or
I'm renaming the thread to what the argument really is.
On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>>
>> And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't connected
>> to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob netwo
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
> publicly routable?
>
Because doing anything else is Harmful! There's even an RFC that says so!
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1627 - Network 10 Considered Harmful
Ford's /8 w
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>
> And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't connected
> to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks for equipment
> management, neither have I.
Yes, for many years. External connections only via Application
On 9/19/12 10:42 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't
connected to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks
for equipment management, neither have I.
Plenty of people on this list have worked on private internet(s) with
real AS num
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:46 AM, Alex Harrowell wrote:
> To be provocative, what on earth is their excuse for not using IPv6
> internally? By definition, an internal network that isn't announced to the
> public Internet doesn't have to worry about happy eyeballs, broken carrier
> NAT, and the like b
On Sep 19, 2012, at 04:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
> unicast.
This didn't sound right, so I decided to test. With the three clients
available to me (laptop running OS X 10.7.4, phone running Android 4.0, and
iPod running iOS 4.1.2) al
Looking for some recommendations on a company to do regularly scheduled
maintenance work on our Generac Generator in Northern Colorado. The company
who did the installation is out of business, and the company who most recently
did work does not believe in answering the phone...
Any suggestions
There is something that I think they call DNS. It may help.
:)
.as
On 19 Sep 2012, at 02:27, Mike Hale wrote:
> You know what sucks worse than NAT?
>
> Memorizing an IPv6 address. ;)
On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:24 AM, John Osmon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:07:33AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> Assume you have a public IPv4 assignment, and someone else
>> starts routing your assignment... "legitimately" or not, RIR allocation
>> transferred to them, or not.
>>
>> There migh
Op 19-9-2012 14:35, Leo Bicknell schreef:
In a message written on Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:11:50PM -0700, Mike Hale wrote:
I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them
back to the general pool?
There's
> The only thing operators have to know about IPv6 is that IPv6, as is
> currently specified, is not operational.
>
I think it is safe to say that this is provably false.
Are there opportunities for increased efficiency, perhaps ... however:
I get native IPv6 at home via my standard residentia
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:07:33AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Assume you have a public IPv4 assignment, and someone else
> starts routing your assignment... "legitimately" or not, RIR allocation
> transferred to them, or not.
>
> There might be a record created in a database, and/or internet ro
In a message written on Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:11:50PM -0700, Mike Hale wrote:
> I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy
> to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them
> back to the general pool?
While I personally think ARIN should do more t
Joseph M. Owino (jpmuga) writes:
> Hi,
>
> Hope you are all well. I work at an exchange point and was seeking any
> assistance on how to implement a software based route server as currently we
> are using a Cisco Router for that purpose. Any form of assistance will be
> highly appreciated.
On 2012-09-19 14:05 , Joseph M. Owino wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hope you are all well. I work at an exchange point and was seeking
> any assistance on how to implement a software based route server as
> currently we are using a Cisco Router for that purpose. Any form of
> assistance will be highly apprecia
Hi,
Hope you are all well. I work at an exchange point and was seeking any
assistance on how to implement a software based route server as currently we
are using a Cisco Router for that purpose. Any form of assistance will be
highly appreciated.
regards
Muga
> So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
> publicly routable?
Because the RIRs aren't in the business of handing out publicly routable
address space. They're in the business of handing out globally unique address
space - *one* of the reasons for which may be connecti
On 19/09/12 08:04, goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message ,
goe...@anime.ne
t writes:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale
wrote:
"this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
disease does
Seth Mos wrote:
> Yes, radvd has a configuration option to send unicast packets. But I
> think the effects are slightly overstated.
A senario considered by IEEE11ai is that a very crowded train
arrives at a station and all the smart phones of passengers
try to connect to APs.
Then, it is essent
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:03:00PM -0700
Quoting Jo Rhett (jrh...@netconsonance.com):
> On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > I'm talking to the people who will probably be, in 2015, running the first
> > Worldcon I can practically drive to, i
eyeronic.des...@gmail.com (Mike Hale) wrote:
> You know what sucks worse than NAT?
> Memorizing an IPv6 address. ;)
I agree. But we'll have to live with it until something better comes along.
> The assumption behind my original question is that the IP space simply
> isn't used anywhere near a
William Herrin wrote:
>> Unicast since its responding to a solicitation?
>>
>> RFC4861 states:
>>
>> A router MAY choose to unicast the
>> response directly to the soliciting host's address (if the
>> solicitation's source address is not the unspecified address), but
>> the usual c
Op 18-9-2012 22:50, William Herrin schreef:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote:
IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a
router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router
advertisement.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message , goe...@anime.ne
t writes:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale wrote:
"this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
In message , goe...@anime.ne
t writes:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale wrote:
> >> "this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the
> >> disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
> >>
> >> I'd love to hear th
62 matches
Mail list logo
