On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Eric Oosting wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ricky Beam" writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
>> wrote:
So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse
>> 6rd...
>>> ...
>>
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> "Ricky Beam" writes:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
> wrote:
> >> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse
> 6rd...
> > ...
> > Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space --
On Dec 2, 2013, at 20:11 , Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> "Ricky Beam" writes:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
>> ...
>> Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone
>>
Two major versions back, is fairly ancient in internet years, yes.
Owen
On Dec 2, 2013, at 19:58 , david raistrick wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Given that 10.7 is fairly ancient at this point
>
> I know, right? 2.5 years old is -ancient-
>
> . o O ( sigh )
>
>
>
>
On 12/2/2013 7:41 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- o...@delong.com wrote:
From: Owen DeLong
I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major
operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they
were an effort to discourage the consumption of the a
On 12/2/2013 6:15 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
I have some good news for you.
"Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
> ...
> Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone
> *is* paying for that space. Yes, it's waste; giving everyone
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Given that 10.7 is fairly ancient at this point
I know, right? 2.5 years old is -ancient-
. o O ( sigh )
--
david raistrickhttp://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
dr...@icantclick.org ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail
On Dec 2, 2013, at 19:34 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:03:59 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Not counting MAC users, because they cannot do DHCPv6 without 3rd party
>>> software.
>>
>> My Macs seem to do DHCPv6 just fine here without third party software, so
>> I'm not sure what
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:03:59 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not counting MAC users, because they cannot do DHCPv6 without 3rd party
software.
My Macs seem to do DHCPv6 just fine here without third party software,
so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
I've heard many reports of apple not
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:02:39 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not really... First of all, domain or other windows authentication could
be used to validate the request.
Most home networks aren't part of a domain. (unless they're using versions
beyond "home", they can't)
Second, if it's site-scope
On Dec 2, 2013, at 18:05 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:18:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You don't, but it's easy enough for Windows to do discovery and/or
>> negotiation for firewall holes with multicast and avoid making
> ...
>
> Actually, your process still makes a very dan
On Dec 2, 2013, at 18:20 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:27:36 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s) can
>>> be smaller than /64. I don't want to give them any ideas, but Uverse could
>>> use their monopoly on router
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
The standards orgs shot us all
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:56:13 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
- A /56 is horribly wrong and the world will end if we don't fix it NOW.
I'm reminded of the Comcast trial deployments. Wasn't their conclusion
(with a collective thumbs up from the networking world) to go with /56?
Yet, even they a
> From: Owen DeLong
>
> I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major
> operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they
> were an effort to discourage the consumption of the addresses and/or the use
> of static addresses and to try an
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:27:36 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s)
can be smaller than /64. I don't want to give them any ideas, but
Uverse could use their monopoly on routers to make your lan a DHCP only
/120.
I think if they di
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:18:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
You don't, but it's easy enough for Windows to do discovery and/or
negotiation for firewall holes with multicast and avoid making
...
Actually, your process still makes a very dangerous assumption... you have
to assume the address passe
On Dec 2, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> DHCPv6-PD isn't a "restriction", it's simply what gets handed out today. A
> "simple" reconfiguration on the DHCP server and it's handing out /56's
> instead. (or *allowing* /56's if requested -- it's better to let the customer
> ask for what th
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:07:40 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Whenever they split or combine a CMTS or head-end...
Shouldn't matter unless they're moving things across DHCP servers. (which
is likely from what I've heard about TWC, and seen from my own modems. In
fact, the addresses in my office c
--- o...@delong.com wrote:
From: Owen DeLong
I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major
operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they
were an effort to discourage the consumption of the addresses and/or the use
of static addres
On Dec 2, 2013, at 17:20 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:16:27 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> So you go from one extreme to another. One lan to one lan-per-device.
>
> No. I'm complaning about how the automatic solution to segmenting the home
> ("homenet") doesn't put any though
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:57 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> (Hint, NEST has already released an IPv4 smoke detector).
>
> And they really should have enabled IPv6 on it :-(
> But the processor should be able to handle it, if
> they update t
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:45 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:54:24 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I said Site-Scoped multicast (ffx5::)
>
> And just how does one telnet/ssh/smb/http/whatever to another machine via
> MULTICAST? You don't. Locating the machine isn't the issue; having an
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:16:27 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
So you go from one extreme to another. One lan to one lan-per-device.
No. I'm complaning about how the automatic solution to segmenting the
home ("homenet") doesn't put any thought into it at all, and puts
everything in it's own net
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:15 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> ... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
>
> Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
> support yet another alteration to the standards.
>
>> For the fe
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> (Hint, NEST has already released an IPv4 smoke detector).
And they really should have enabled IPv6 on it :-(
But the processor should be able to handle it, if
they update the firmware. I hear Tado does IPv6.
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > ... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
>
> Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
> support yet another alteration to the standards.
Guess what, networks evolv
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:54:24 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
I said Site-Scoped multicast (ffx5::)
And just how does one telnet/ssh/smb/http/whatever to another machine via
MULTICAST? You don't. Locating the machine isn't the issue; having an
address that can be trivially determined as "local" i
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain wrote:
> > If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment,
>
> I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it
> today, you get a /64 without doing anything. If that'
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
For the few residential ISP's that do this what is it? $5 / month
pe
On Dec 2, 2013, at 15:45 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:54:50 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I don't know why you think that the PC and Laptop can't talk to each other.
>> It actually seems to work just fine. They both default to the upstream
>> router and the router has more spec
On Dec 2, 2013, at 15:10 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain wrote:
>> If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment,
>
> I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it today,
> you get a /64 without doing anything
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:54:50 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
I don't know why you think that the PC and Laptop can't talk to each
other. It actually seems to work just fine. They both default to the
upstream router and the router has more specifics to each of the two LAN
segments.
You are confu
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain wrote:
If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment,
I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it
today, you get a /64 without doing anything. If that's all you need, then
you're done. If you
On 12/02/2013 02:35 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
We don't know what we'll need in the future. We only know what we need
right now. Using the current dynamic mechanisms we can provide for now
and "later", as "later" becomes apparent.
I hate to keep repeating this, but each time the argument comes up th
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways
> > now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
>
> Interesting... I've not looked at the current "high e
On Dec 2, 2013, at 14:35 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways now
>> come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
>
> Interesting... I've not looked at the curre
On Dec 2, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Ricky Beam wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
>> wrote:
>>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse
> 6rd...
>>
>> Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable
> user
>>
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways
now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
Interesting... I've not looked at the current "high end" (i.e. things that
cost more than $17 at T
Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
> wrote:
> > So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse
6rd...
>
> Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable
user
> want/need.
>
> How many residential, "home networks", hav
On Dec 2, 2013, at 13:25 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
>
> Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable user
> want/need.
>
> How many resid
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:31:08 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time...
I suspect it'll fall the other way. In a few decades, people will be
wondering what we were smoking to have carved up this /8 (and maybe a few
of them by then) in such an insanely sparse ("wa
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable
user want/need.
How many residential, "home networks", have you seen with more than one
On 12/2/2013 9:55 AM, Rampley Jr, Jim F wrote:
Wondering if anybody on the list has any working configurations for
RSVP tunnels between a Cisco ASR9k to Alcatel-Lucent 7750? I've been
able to get LSP's up and talking between the two boxes, but I'm
having an issue getting the RSVP tunnels to com
Wondering if anybody on the list has any working configurations for RSVP
tunnels between a Cisco ASR9k to Alcatel-Lucent 7750? I've been able to get
LSP's up and talking between the two boxes, but I'm having an issue getting the
RSVP tunnels to come up on the Cisco side.
Jim
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Darren Pilgrim wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2013 1:07 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>> > Is a /60 what is considered generous these days?
>>
>> Comcast only gives you a /64.
>
> That could be awkward for anyone who wants to run a separate LAN for
> wired
jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com writes:
>> IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time this line of reasoning [...]
>
> Hopefully, the fullness of time won't apply to 6RD (this is what
> was being discussed here, not dual-stack).
I agree but there's a subtlety here - we don't want to get peo
> De : Rob Seastrom
> > This space wouldn't be used much anyway,
> > given that most 6RD routers use only one /64, sometimes two.
> > I argue that a /60 is actually the best compromise here, from
> > a space and usage point of view.
>
> IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time this line of re
Wait, ISPs rolling out native dual stack are "victimizing" their customers?
From: Owen DeLong [o...@delong.com]
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 4:41 AM
To: Leo Vegoda
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
Agreed… Unforutnately,
there's a global site called HWTrek you may want to check out.
On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Matt Kelly wrote:
> I recently had a project end and have some pretty powerful hardware left
> over. Without spamming the list, I'm trying to get feedback as to where might
> be a good place to list this
I recently had a project end and have some pretty powerful hardware left over.
Without spamming the list, I'm trying to get feedback as to where might be a
good place to list this hardware and or resellers to contact who may be
interested. The hardware is Juniper MX960 routers purchased new and
Hi,
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 11/28/2013 1:07 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> > Is a /60 what is considered generous these days?
>
> Comcast only gives you a /64.
That could be awkward for anyone who wants to run a separate LAN for
wired and wireless. I hope it's only temporary.
Cheers,
Leo
smime
53 matches
Mail list logo
