> On Jul 15, 2015, at 22:46 , Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/15/15 7:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>
>> Go to any business with hardware that is 3-5 years old in its IT
>> infrastructure and devices ranging from PCs running XP to the random
>> consumer gear people bring in (cameras, pr
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 19:32 , Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message <55a682e6.1050...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
>> On 7/14/2015 11:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet I can take a Windows XP box. Tell it to enable IPv6 and it
>>> just works. Everything that a node needed existed
On Thu 2015-Jul-16 12:32:19 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
--snip--
You can blame the religious zealots that insisted that everything
DHCP does has to also be done via RA's. This means that everyone
has to implement everything twice. Something Google should have
realised when they releases Androi
On 07/15/2015 07:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
None of which is the fault of the protocol. Blame the equipement vendors
for being negligent.
I'm sorry, it is just me? Or is the issue before us to fix the PROBLEM
and not fix the BLAME? Pointing fingers isn't going to help get us to
widespread
* Owen DeLong
> > On Jul 15, 2015, at 08:57 , Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > This is only true for dual-stacked networks. I just tried to set up
> > an IPv6-only WiFi network at my house recently, and it was a total
> > fail due to non-implementation of relatively new standards...
> > starting with
On 7/15/15 7:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Go to any business with hardware that is 3-5 years old in its IT
infrastructure and devices ranging from PCs running XP to the random
consumer gear people bring in (cameras, printers, tablets, etc.) and see
how easy it is to get everything talking on an
In message <55a682e6.1050...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
> On 7/14/2015 11:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Yet I can take a Windows XP box. Tell it to enable IPv6 and it
> > just works. Everything that a node needed existed when Windows XP
> > was released. The last 15 years has bee
Thanks for the tests that show the NODATA is from the authoritative
nameserver. To clarify, Google DNS does not filter either or any of
these domains.
Yunhong
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Yang Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Nicholas Warren
> wrote:
> > Surely Microsoft h
Joe Maimon wrote:
> Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> >
> > This isn’t really a giant set of naysayers IMHO, but there is enough
> embedded logic in devices that it doesn’t make that much sense.
>
> Enough to scuttle all previous drafts.
>
> > linux
>
> a little google comes up with this
>
> http://www.g
On 7/15/15 4:45 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
other then the ipv6 adherents.
Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the
good old days." So in t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 7/15/2015 6:00 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Are you really equating an incremental silent update to remove
>> something between one if statement or slightly more and an entire
>> protocol stack that when active fundamentally changes the host
>>
Are you really equating an incremental silent update to remove something
between one if statement or slightly more and an entire protocol stack that
when active fundamentally changes the host networking behavior?
Yeah. On the devices I have, there's no practical difference between a
one line
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 14:43 , Ricky Beam wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:23:52 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking”
>> when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but lots
>> of people have said “what th
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 16:45 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
>>> other then the ipv6 adherents.
>>
>> Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or tw
Jared Mauch wrote:
This isn’t really a giant set of naysayers IMHO, but there is enough embedded
logic in devices that it doesn’t make that much sense.
Enough to scuttle all previous drafts.
linux
a little google comes up with this
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/86
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:35:07 -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
So your point is that those who claimed it would not help managed to
make it so?
Would it have really hurt to remove experimental status and replace it
with use at your own risk status? Even now?
No. The point is it's been wired into e
On 7/15/15 4:35 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> At this point, you are running the risk of conflating your goals with
> your technical objections to the goals of others. And this has always
> been the real underlying issue.
My goal in an operational capacity is to continue to hold onto the
quality and
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:24 , Joe Maimon wrote:
I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other
then the ipv6 adherents.
But it wouldn’t be right now. It would be after everyone put lots of effort
into updating lots of systems so that they
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
>>> other then the ipv6 adherents.
>>
>> Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or t
In message <55a6ee2b.5040...@ttec.com>, Joe Maimon writes:
> joel jaeggli wrote:
> > On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> >>
> >> The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the
> >> community who created it.
> >
> > joel@ubuntu:~$ uname -a
> > Linux ubuntu 3.8.0-44-generic #66
On 07/15/2015 02:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they
thinking” when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of
just 640k, but lots of people have said “what the F*** were they
thinking when they limited it to 640k.”
That 640k was the
John Levine wrote:
I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
other then the ipv6 adherents.
It would, if the software supported it. But it doesn't.
Is there any reason to think the world would update its TCP stacks to
handle those extra IPv4 addresses any sooner t
Doug Barton wrote:
On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
other then the ipv6 adherents.
Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the
good old days." So in the best case scenario we'd get 32 more
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant
address space.
There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with
stupid allocation policies.
True. However, are you making th
joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the
community who created it.
joel@ubuntu:~$ uname -a
Linux ubuntu 3.8.0-44-generic #66~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 15
04:01:04 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
joe
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Jake Khuon wrote:
>
> On 15/07/15 04:54, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> Does anyone know what the story is here? They have some transparent proxies
>> for IPv4 traffic and I was wondering if they were to be IPv6 enabled soon or
>> if IPv6 will reach the handset.
>
> Hmm
On 15/07/15 04:54, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Does anyone know what the story is here? They have some transparent proxies
> for IPv4 traffic and I was wondering if they were to be IPv6 enabled soon or
> if IPv6 will reach the handset.
Hmmm... I'm seeing my rmnet1 interface on my Galaxy S5 as having
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:34:13 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
That covers multicast and RFC-1918. Are there any other IPv4
segmentations that you can think of?
...
Given that we came up with 3 total segmentations in IPv4 over the course
#1-3,#4 RFC-1918 is 3 "segments" and we recently added a 4th
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:23:52 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking”
when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but
lots of people have said “what the F*** were they thinking when they
limited it to 640k.”
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:55 , Barry Shein wrote:
>
>
> On July 15, 2015 at 09:20 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>>
>> There are two ways to waste addresses. One is to allocate them to users who
>> don,Abt actually use all of them.
>>
>> The other is to keep them on the shelf in the f
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:23 , Ricky Beam wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant
address space.
>>>
>>> There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with
>>> stupid a
On 7/15/15 1:48 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:23:36 -0400, "Ricky Beam" said:
What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** were
they thinking".
However, this statement doesn't provide any actual guidance, as it's
potentially equally applicab
On July 15, 2015 at 09:20 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>
> There are two ways to waste addresses. One is to allocate them to users who
> don
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:23:36 -0400, "Ricky Beam" said:
> What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** were
> they thinking".
However, this statement doesn't provide any actual guidance, as it's
potentially equally applicable to the "give each end customer a /48" crew and
t
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:20:11 -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
Business Class DOCSIS customers get a prefix automatically (unless you
provide your own gateway and DHCPv6 isn¹t enabled).
I looked last night at the office in Cary, NC. NO RAs are seen on the link
coming from the Ubee (bridged) providing
George Metz wrote:
> > snip
> > Split the difference, go with a /52
> >>
> >
> > That's not splitting the difference. :) A /56 is half way between a
> > /48 and a /64. That's 256 /64s, for those keeping score at home.
> >
>
> It's splitting the difference between a /56 and a /48. I can't imagin
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant
address space.
There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with
stupid allocation policies.
True. However, are you making the argument that any
On 7/13/15, 3:43 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Ricky Beam"
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:32:33 -0400, Ca By wrote:
>> Yes, move your business to TWC. TWC has a proven v6 deployment and is
>> actively engaged in the community, as where vz Fios is not.
>
>Yes, because TWC-BC's IPv6 support is stella
On 7/15/15 12:43 PM, George Metz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Doug Barton mailto:do...@dougbarton.us>> wrote:
On 7/15/15 8:20 AM, George Metz wrote:
Snip!
Also, as Owen pointed out, the original concept for IPv6 networking
was a 64 bit address space all along. The "e
>
> I wasn't intending yourself as the recipient keep in mind. However, IS
> their premise wrong? Is prudence looking at incomprehensible numbers and
> saying "we're so unlikely to run out that it just doesn't matter" or is
> prudence "Well, we have no idea what's coming, so let's be a little less
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 7/15/15 8:20 AM, George Metz wrote:
>
>>
>>
Snip!
> Also, as Owen pointed out, the original concept for IPv6 networking was a
> 64 bit address space all along. The "extra" (or some would say, "wasted")
> 64 bits were tacked on later.
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 11:32 , David Conrad wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
>> Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US
>> organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on all
>> of Vietnam got one /26.
>
> IIRC (I was runni
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:24 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>> In message
>>
>
>> We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly
>> to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone.
>
> That is a self fulfilling prophecy.
>
> I suspect a 16 /8
>I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
>other then the ipv6 adherents.
It would, if the software supported it. But it doesn't.
Is there any reason to think the world would update its TCP stacks to
handle those extra IPv4 addresses any sooner than it'd update its
s
Hi,
On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US
> organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on all
> of Vietnam got one /26.
IIRC (I was running APNIC at the time), when the first organization from
Vietnam app
On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
other then the ipv6 adherents.
Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the
good old days." So in the best case scenario we'd get 32 more months of
easy to ge
On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>> In message
>>
>
>> We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly
>> to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone.
>
> That is a self fulfilling prophecy.
>
> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now
On 7/15/15 8:20 AM, George Metz wrote:
Reasonability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but I thank
you for the compliment. :)
I call them like I see them. :)
The short answer is "yes, that constitutes being prudent".
Ok, good news so far. :)
The longer
answer is "it depends on
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message
We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly
to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone.
That is a self fulfilling prophecy.
I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
other then the ipv6 adhe
On 7/15/15, 11:57 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Kaufman"
wrote:
>
>Go to any business with hardware that is 3-5 years old in its IT
>infrastructure and devices ranging from PCs running XP to the random
>consumer gear people bring in (cameras, printers, tablets, etc.) and see
>how easy it is to
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 08:57 , Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> On 7/14/2015 11:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> Yet I can take a Windows XP box. Tell it to enable IPv6 and it
>> just works. Everything that a node needed existed when Windows XP
>> was released. The last 15 years has been waiting fo
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 08:20 , George Metz wrote:
>
> Reasonability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but I thank you
> for the compliment. :)
>
> The short answer is "yes, that constitutes being prudent". The longer
> answer is "it depends on what you consider the wildest dreams".
>
It would be nice if it were possible to implement BCP 38 in IPv6, since this
is the reason it isn't in IPv4.
There isn't any technical reason that an organization can't fix its edge
so it doesn't urinate bad IPv6 traffic all over the Internet.
In IPv4 systems, the problem is (so I have been to
On 7/14/2015 11:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Yet I can take a Windows XP box. Tell it to enable IPv6 and it
just works. Everything that a node needed existed when Windows XP
was released. The last 15 years has been waiting for ISP's and CPE
vendors to deliver IPv6 as a product. This is not to
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 03:43 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> On 15 July 2015 at 01:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> For one thing a /32 is nowhere near enough for anything bigger than a
>> modest ISP today. Many will need /28, /24, or even larger. The biggest ones
>> probably need /16 or even /12 in so
On 7/15/2015 8:25 AM, John Levine wrote:
It would be nice if it were possible to implement BCP 38 in IPv6,
since this is the reason it isn't in IPv4.
Too bad the hazards of allowing people to use arbitrary source addresses
weren't known when IPv6 was designed.
Matthew Kaufman
On 15 Jul 2015 15:25:05 -, "John Levine" said:
> It would be nice if it were possible to implement BCP 38 in IPv6, since this
> is the reason it isn't in IPv4.
There isn't any technical reason that an organization can't fix its edge
so it doesn't urinate bad IPv6 traffic all over the Internet
>Same way it happens today. Business starts out small, uses IP space from
>their single ISP. Couple years later, they're bigger and want to dual-home
>for better uptime or other reasons. Unless there is something stopping them
>from advertising their ISP 'A' space out to ISP 'B' in IPv6 land, we
I google¹d ³IPv6 for Dummies² and found this:
https://www.wesecure.nl/upload/documents/tinymce/IPv6.pdf
It¹s licensed from the For Dummies series, written and published by
Infoblox.
more below. . .
On 7/14/15, 8:02 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike" wrote:
>
>
>On 07/14/2015 04:46 PM, Stephen Satche
Reasonability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but I thank you
for the compliment. :)
The short answer is "yes, that constitutes being prudent". The longer
answer is "it depends on what you consider the wildest dreams".
There's a couple of factors playing in. First, look at every /64
On 7/15/15 3:43 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> On 15 July 2015 at 01:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> For one thing a /32 is nowhere near enough for anything bigger than a
>> modest ISP today. Many will need /28, /24, or even larger. The biggest ones
>> probably need /16 or even /12 in some cases.
>>
>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:27:08PM +0300, John Kinsella wrote:
> On 7/15/15 1:28 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> >You can't be a "dummy" and a service provider...
>
> oh? :)
Counterexample: Cox. They refuse to even admit to me that they are even
considering IPV6.
--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mike
Price varies significantly by prefix length, and somewhat by region.
Regional variance may not be as much as it used to be.
Lee
On 7/14/15, 6:15 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Pavel Odintsov"
wrote:
>Hello, folks!
>
>I have finished multiple (and 5th in RIPE) inter RIR subnet moves in RIPE
>region. We
On 7/14/15, 11:16 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Randy Bush"
wrote:
>> While the base curve it runs on is running ahead of the measured traffic
>> curve, the measure of IPv6 enabled browsers is a reasonable indicator
>>for
>> what is happening.
>
>we're an isp, with ipv6 enabled since 1997. we measur
On 7/15/15 1:28 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
You can't be a "dummy" and a service provider...
oh? :)
-Original Message-
From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:50 PM
To: Chuck Church
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
>This is IPv6. Why shouldn't they have their own PI space?
Same way it happens today. Business star
Did you deploy Mikrotik routers by any chance?
-mel beckman
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:29 AM, Baldur Norddahl
> wrote:
>
>> On 15 July 2015 at 02:02, Mike wrote:
>>
>> I am a small provider with a 16 bit asn, a /20 and a /22 of ipv4 and a /32
>> of v6, but no clue yet how to get from where I a
Does anyone know what the story is here? They have some transparent proxies for
IPv4 traffic and I was wondering if they were to be IPv6 enabled soon or if
IPv6 will reach the handset.
Thanks,
Jared Mauch
On 15 July 2015 at 01:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
> For one thing a /32 is nowhere near enough for anything bigger than a
> modest ISP today. Many will need /28, /24, or even larger. The biggest ones
> probably need /16 or even /12 in some cases.
>
What is the definition of a modest and a large ISP?
On 15 July 2015 at 02:02, Mike wrote:
> I am a small provider with a 16 bit asn, a /20 and a /22 of ipv4 and a /32
> of v6, but no clue yet how to get from where I am today to where we all
> should be. The flame wars and vitrol and rhetoric is too much noise for me
> to derive anything useful fro
Mark is right and I couldn't agree more with him.
On 15/07/15 08:22, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Yet I can take a Windows XP box. Tell it to enable IPv6 and it
> just works. Everything that a node needed existed when Windows XP
> was released. The last 15 years has been waiting for ISP's and CPE
> v
In message <55a5b526.8030...@alter3d.ca>, Peter Kristolaitis writes:
> On 7/14/2015 8:02 PM, Mike wrote:
> > The flame wars and vitrol and rhetoric is too much noise for me to
> > derive anything useful from. Someone needs to stand up and lead. I
> > will happily follow.
>
> "Too much noise" ha
72 matches
Mail list logo
