On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 03:12:46PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> skype seems to have made the latest 6.x incompatible with 2.8 (which
> folk who care about screen real estate run) in that video no longer
> works between them.
>
> until widespread availability of webrtc, a bunch of us are using
> jits
On 4/24/13 1:55 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013, Geoff Huston wrote:
However, personally I find it a little hard to place a high
probability on Tony's projected exhaustion date of August this year.
I also have to qualify that by noting that while I think that a
runout of the
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514066/what-happened-when-one-man-pinged-the-whole-internet/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20130426
On Apr 25, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 00:19 , joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
>>> Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran
>>> bigger
>>> networks:
>>>
>>> Does anyone know how much IPv4 spa
skype seems to have made the latest 6.x incompatible with 2.8 (which
folk who care about screen real estate run) in that video no longer
works between them.
until widespread availability of webrtc, a bunch of us are using
jitsi for video, https://jitsi.org/
o uses open standard protocols
o fr
On Apr 26, 2013 12:29 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 00:19 , joel jaeggli wrote:
> > On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> >> Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran
bigger
> >> networks:
> >>
> >> Does anyone know how much IPv4 space
On 4/25/13 10:16 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 07:49:03PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 04/25/2013 07:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
AWS stands out as a complete laggard in this area.
Heh... that's why I put all kinds of question marks and hedges :)
That's disappointing about aws
On 4/25/13 9:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 26, 2013, at 00:19 , joel jaeggli wrote:
On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran bigger
networks:
Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cat
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 07:49:03PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 07:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >AWS stands out as a complete laggard in this area.
>
> Heh... that's why I put all kinds of question marks and hedges :)
> That's disappointing about aws. On the other hand, if aws light
Wondering if this lawsuit has or will potentially affect any other NANOG
operators?
My understanding is that anyone that was counting (planning) on this
infrastructure in rural Florida for middle-mile or long-haul transport
should now seek alternative options?
-HM/DAK
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9
On Apr 26, 2013, at 00:19 , joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran bigger
>> networks:
>>
>> Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
>> to the fact that HTTPS requir
On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran bigger
networks:
Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
It doesn't, or doesn't if if you
On 04/25/2013 09:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "David Hubbard"
The web server has to support it too, which means compiling
apache with SNI support and there are of course plenty of
hosts running old apache.
Well, sure, but for the hoster, it's a direct benefi
On 04/25/2013 07:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
At some level, I wonder how much the feedback loop of "providers
won't deploy ipv6 because everybody says they won't deploy ipv6"
has caused this self-fulfilling prophecy :/
It's a definite issue. The bigger issue is the financial incentives are all in
On Apr 25, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Chris Adams"
>
>> Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
>>> Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
>>> to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
>>>
- Original Message -
> From: "David Hubbard"
> The web server has to support it too, which means compiling
> apache with SNI support and there are of course plenty of
> hosts running old apache.
Well, sure, but for the hoster, it's a direct benefit, not an externality;
they have motive t
> At some level, I wonder how much the feedback loop of "providers
> won't deploy ipv6 because everybody says they won't deploy ipv6"
> has caused this self-fulfilling prophecy :/
It's a definite issue. The bigger issue is the financial incentives are all in
the
wrong direction.
Eyeball networks
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:47 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
>
>
> When you say "it is mostly deployed", what exactly do you
> mean? Is it
> layer 7 or 4? Does it live in libraries that can be upgraded behind
> users' backs?
- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Adams"
> Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
> > Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
> > to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
> >
> > Is that a statistically significant percentage of all t
We're a host catering to just ecommerce sites and consume an
IPv4 address for each site specifically because of SSL certs.
SNI (Server Name Indication) is what you're thinking of to let
SSL send the hostname as the handshake process begins and
does indeed eliminate the need for an exclusive IP (alt
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
> Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
> to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
>
> Is that a statistically significant percentage of all the IPs in use?
I have no numbers, but my gut feeling is that
Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran bigger
networks:
Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
Is that a statistically significant percentage of all the IPs in use?
Wa
CGN "works" for eyeball networks, but not for hosting. From the remarks at
this week's ARIN meeting, that's where ARIN has seen an uptick in requests.
So those who sell virtual machines, IPv4 addresses are critical if they want
make their offering viable in the near-term.
Frank
-Original Mes
> There was some good information shared at the recent INET Denver on
> value vs. price and how to determine value of an IPv4 address, you can
> watch the panel discussion on YouTube: http://youtu.be/v43CGqq70rM.
amusing how much curran is interested in asserting his/arin's power and
rights and ho
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> There is a lot of speculation what IPv4 addresses are worth, I've been
> hearing everything from a few USD to 20 EUR per address.
There was some good information shared at the recent INET Denver on
value vs. price and how to determine
On 04/25/2013 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT? Assuming
that it's death for the ISP to just say no to the lo
On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
> will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT? Assuming
> that it's death for the ISP to just say no to the long tail of legacy v4-only
> sites?
Thi
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 04/25/2013 10:10 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?
Do you count NAT64 or M
On 04/25/2013 10:10 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?
Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?
I suppose that the
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?
Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?
One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an I
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, John Levine wrote:
Once people realize that there's no more free v4 space to be had, or
only little bits, that the market will develop and a lot of space will
appear for sale. For example, there's an educational insitution near
Boston that's sitting on a /8. If the price
In article <51794abf.5040...@mtcc.com> you write:
>So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
>will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT? Assuming
>that it's death for the ISP to just say no to the long tail of legacy v4-only
>sites?
Sure. Enoug
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT? Assuming
that it's death for the ISP to just say no to the long tail of legacy v4-only
sites?
One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an ISP
Yes.
We figured this out and we are starting a program (or a set of
activities) to promote the deployment of IPv6 in what we call "End-users
organizations" (basically enterprises, universities). We are seeing much
lower adoption numbers than our ISP's categories.
One basi
On Apr 24, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "Justin M. Streiner"
wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
>> http://www22.verizon.com/Support/Residential/Internet/HighSpeed/General+Support/Top+Questions/QuestionsOne/ATLAS8742.htm
>
> One minor typo in this one, that I've emailed Verizon's we
> Frankly, the ISPs likely to be tracking this list aren't the people holding
> back there. To pick on one that is fairly public, Verizon Wireline is running
> dual stack for at least its FIOS customers, and also deploying CGN, and being
> pretty up front about the impacts of CGN. Verizon Wirele
> The really troubling thing that I don't get is why RR got a pile of little
> blocks rather than a /12 up front. I don't know if that is an impact of
> broken policy, internal deployment decisions about 'right size' allocations
> rather than intentional deaggregation, or trying to 'fly under the r
38 matches
Mail list logo
