Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

On 4/29/13, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard wrote: >> On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "Jérôme Nicolle" wrote: > specified (based on being singly-homed or multi-homed.) These same > criteria now apply to receipt of an address block via transfer, so at > regional IPv4 free pool d

Re: Comcast Launches IPv6 for Business Customers

On 2013-04-29 21:26, Christopher Morrow wrote: we have always been at war with your cisco-ians... No worries, the good folks at Hurricane Electric helped me dig a tunnel to freedom long ago. :)

RE: 80 km BiDi XFPs

You're the first person to suggest that kind of configuration, so thanks. We ended up purchasing an 8-wave DWDM from our transport vendor, as it solved the problem and gives us a path to future growth. Frank -Original Message- From: Jérôme Nicolle [mailto:jer...@ceriz.fr] Sent: Monday,

Re: Comcast Launches IPv6 for Business Customers

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > On 2013-04-29 15:38, Brzozowski, John wrote: > >> FYI for folks that are interested: >> >> http://corporate.comcast.com/**comcast-voices/comcast-** >> launches-ipv6-for-business-**customers

Re: Comcast Launches IPv6 for Business Customers

On 2013-04-29 15:38, Brzozowski, John wrote: FYI for folks that are interested: http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-launches-ipv6-for-business-customers I hope opening up IPv6 support to Comcast's higher-end customers is an indicator Comcast really is close to enabling IPv6 on

RE: Comcast Launches IPv6 for Business Customers

From: Derek Ivey [mailto:de...@derekivey.com] > > Thanks for all the hard work getting IPv6 deployed! I signed > my company up for the trials. Can't wait to test it out :). > > I agree, I wish Verizon would wake up and announce something. > It's pretty sad that their IPv6 support page still say

Re: Comcast Launches IPv6 for Business Customers

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Derek Ivey wrote: Thanks for all the hard work getting IPv6 deployed! I signed my company up for the trials. Can't wait to test it out :). I agree, I wish Verizon would wake up and announce something. It's pretty sad that their IPv6 support page still says 3Q12 and they'v

Re: Comcast Launches IPv6 for Business Customers

Thanks for all the hard work getting IPv6 deployed! I signed my company up for the trials. Can't wait to test it out :). I agree, I wish Verizon would wake up and announce something. It's pretty sad that their IPv6 support page still says 3Q12 and they've yet to say any more about their plans.

Re: Comcast Launches IPv6 for Business Customers

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Brzozowski, John < john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > FYI for folks that are interested: > > > http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-launches-ipv6-for-business-customers > > > hurray! how long until VZ puts out a PR note for Fios Business cus

Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

Other AC members and I are in the process of crafting a proposal to address this issue. Please stay tuned. I hope to have something ready to post to PPML in the next few weeks. Owen On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:19 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > >> On 4/

Comcast Launches IPv6 for Business Customers

FYI for folks that are interested: http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-launches-ipv6-for-business-customers John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com w) http://www.comcast6.net ===

Need someone from telia NOC Ops

Hi, Can someone from telia.net ops contact me offlist please. thank you, Beavis. $ traceroute www.cnn.com traceroute to www.cnn.com (157.166.249.11), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 190.106.69.113 (190.106.69.113) 16.792 ms 17.686 ms 18.049 ms 2 186.32.189.69 (186.32.189.69) 103.475 ms

Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "Jérôme Nicolle" wrote: > >> It is necessary to keep an acceptable churn and still allocate small >> blocks to newcomers, merely to deploy CGNs. >> >> Not doing so would end up in courts for entry barrier enforced by a >> mon

Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "Jérôme Nicolle" wrote: >Le 24/04/2013 07:46, Tore Anderson a écrit : >> Trying to reclaim and redistribute unused space would be a tremendous >> waste of effort. > >It is necessary to keep an acceptable churn and still allocate small >blocks to newcomers, merely to deploy C

[NANOG-announce] New NANOG website launching tomorrow evening - Maintenance Notice

Greetings NANOG community, We have great news to report! The redeveloped NANOG website is now ready to go live. Thanks to the input from the community, as well as all the volunteers that assisted from concept to completion and every step in between. One of the primary goals of the redesign was

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

On 04/29/2013 11:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote: If the existing cards handle CGN without additional licensing, then the only real cost is personal, my sanity, and the company need/will not factor that in. One thing to consider is what the new support load will be from issues dealing with CGN causin

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

On 4/29/2013 12:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: What does the CGN cost you per subscriber (equipment, additional staff, etc.?) In my case, very little. Equipment was covered by bandwidth usage which mandated upgrading to higher end routers that support more than I need. It looks like my trios ha

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 4/29/2013 11:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Best of luck with that strategy. I think this ignores the growing IPv4 >> demand that will be coming from your business customers and assumes that >> your residential customers are all that you have

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

On 4/29/2013 11:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Best of luck with that strategy. I think this ignores the growing IPv4 demand that will be coming from your business customers and assumes that your residential customers are all that you have to stack onto these addresses. The residential currently

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 4/29/2013 3:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Depends. Unless there is sufficient mass of residential subscribers willing >> to pay the premium for CGN (unlikely in my estimation), it'll make the most >> sense for residential providers to simply t

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

On 4/29/2013 3:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Depends. Unless there is sufficient mass of residential subscribers willing to pay the premium for CGN (unlikely in my estimation), it'll make the most sense for residential providers to simply turn off IPv4 services and tell laggard web sites like Amazo

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

On Apr 28, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On 4/28/13, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I don't see turning IPv4 off as a short-term goal for anyone. >> OTOH, I do see the cost of maintaining residential IPv4 service escalating >> over about the next 5-7 years. > > Yes... Which I interpret to res

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

On 4/29/13, Jakob Heitz wrote: > That's evil. > Charge what it costs to provide each service. > If and when it costs more to provide IPv4 service (and only then), then > charge more for it. Which of the below do you suggest is evil? Offering an IPv6 only service and charging a lower price for it

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

On 4/28/13 3:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote: -- for example: large Cable providers getting together and agreeing to implement a 100ms RTT latency penalty for IPv4 we do not see intentionally damaging our customers as a big sales feature. but we think all our competitors should do so. This business