Rubens, good day.
Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:32:29PM -0300, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ca By wrote:
>
> >
> > https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why-and-how.html
> >
> > Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well
>
On Thu 2016-Jun-02 11:05:54 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Warning: Hat = Enterprise Network Admin
Sarcasm = High
...
Sadly, I wish all these answers were some sort of carachture of reality,
but I think they are too many folks reality.
IOW:
http://ipv6excuses.com/ / https://twitter.com/
On 2016-06-01 11:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Turns out it has nothing to do with my IPv4 connectivity. Neither of
> my ISPs has native IPv6 connectivity, so both require tunnels (one of
> them to HE.net, one to the ISPs own tunnel broker), and both appear to
> be detected as a non-permitted VP
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 17:11:57 -0400, Todd Crane
wrote:
... Curious as to what they use it for if not Web, MX, or DNS.
Same thing as Earthlink, apparently. (answer: nothing. at. all.)
If you have peering relationship with Google, you can use the isp.google.com
portal to self-publish geo information on your netblocks. At least you can
in theory. By their own admission, they have never checked the
self-published URL that I configured over a month ago.
YMMV.
-richard
On Thu, Jun
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:11:57 -0700, Todd Crane said:
> According to bgp.he.net and ARIN, craigslist has 2620:7E::/44 which is
> announced on several transits. Curious as to what they use it for if not
> Web, MX, or DNS.
Well, for starters, they could put a quad-A in the DNS for www.craigslist.com
>responded, "Why not just get more IPv4 addresses? Just go back to
>IANA[sic] for more if you don't have enough already."
I can't say I'm surprised. Within the past year we've had mail from
people here on NANOG who haven't gotten the memo that Network
Solutions and Verisign are not the same comp
According to bgp.he.net and ARIN, craigslist has 2620:7E::/44 which is
announced on several transits. Curious as to what they use it for if not Web,
MX, or DNS.
—Todd
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 2:00 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> apparently Craigslist doesn't have an IPv6 presence yet
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 15:45:33 -0500, Darin Steffl said:
> Have been getting reports of the same thing. Went to the craigslist help
> forums where some people there decided to call us a fake ISP because we
> don't hand out publics to every customer. They were VERY rude and hopefully
> none of them we
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 23:47:59 -0400, Paul Ferguson
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
There is an epic lesson here. I'm just not sure what it is. :-)
- - ferg
https://youtu.be/SlA9hmrC8DU?t=2m25s
Would be really stupid if they were blocking all users behind NATs.
BTW if I enter craigslist.com, it redirects me to "prague.craigslist.cz"
(makes sense, I'm from CZ and close to Prague), but it uses an invalid
SSL certificate.
--- Filip
On 06/02/2016 10:45 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:
Have b
On Thu, June 2, 2016 15:45, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff McAdams wrote:
>> Yes. I had a member of an account team for a networking vendor express
>> extreme skepticism when discussing IP address plans and work I had
>> done. When describing why I went with an
I personally applaud this effort as initiatives like this that help
prevent the global propagation of Bogons and other "bad things" only
serves to help us all. With that said, notice went out to potentially
affected GTT / AS3257 customers this week that by the end of June we too
will be filter
Have been getting reports of the same thing. Went to the craigslist help
forums where some people there decided to call us a fake ISP because we
don't hand out publics to every customer. They were VERY rude and hopefully
none of them were employees. They said our customers can't use craigslist
if w
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> On Thu, June 2, 2016 13:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> > REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't
> > had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn
Dear fellow network operators,
In July 2016, NTT Communications' Global IP Network AS2914 will deploy a
new routing policy to block Bogon ASNs from its view of the default-free
zone. This notification is provided as a courtesy to the network
community at large.
After the Bogon ASN filter policy h
On Thu, June 2, 2016 13:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> Yes.
>>
> âREALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't
> had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn is expensive
> 2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for la
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett > wrote:
> >> do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
> >> deployment on the slow-boat?
> > Yes.
>
> I have a confession: I don't use IPv6.
>
> I don't use IPv6 at home be
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
>> deployment on the slow-boat?
> Yes.
I have a confession: I don't use IPv6.
I don't use IPv6 at home because:
1. My Verizon FiOS link does not support IPv6.
2. My Cox Ca
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe
>>> wrote:
>>>
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6
Warning: Hat = Enterprise Network Admin
Sarcasm = High
In a message written on Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:31:43PM -0400, Christopher
Morrow wrote:
> REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had
> beaten into their heads:
> 1) cgn is expensive
Wazzat? Isn't
I would be surprised if more than 10% - 20% of networks have received effective
marketing on IPv6.
Look at how many network operators that don't "get" basic network security
alerts like "There is a long since patched vulnerability being actively
exploited on the Internet right now. Your equipm
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Yes.
>
>
REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had
beaten into their heads:
1) cgn is expensive
2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new
thingies)
3) there really isn't muc
Yes.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Morrow"
To: "Daniel Corbe"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:41:33 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 is better
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if
>>> objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps th
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe > wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if
>> objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the
>> adoption process.
>
>
> do we
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe
wrote:
> Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if
> objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the
> adoption process.
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
deploy
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ca By wrote:
>
> https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why-and-how.html
>
> Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well
> over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating
> studies from Li
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
>> Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as 1M DSL
>> out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 being
>> capable on modern 4G wireless and fib
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as 1M DSL
> out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 being
> capable on modern 4G wireless and fiber connections makes the average
> faster.
>
>
>
Akamai,
CenturyTel in this area provides IPv6 to DSL customers.
Thank you,
- Nich
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 10:43 AM
> To: Christopher Morrow
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than
Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as 1M DSL
out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 being
capable on modern 4G wireless and fiber connections makes the average
faster.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ca By wrote:
>
> https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why-and-how.html
>
> Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well
> over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating
> studies from Li
https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why-and-how.html
Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well
over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating
studies from Linkedin and Facebook.
Fair to ask your business 1) does mob
Heya,
Im in the same boat if anyone from google wants to be a dear and help out.
Cheers,
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>
> I too am having a similar problem. Used the remediation link at
> https://support.google.com/websearch/contact/ip and it’s only partially
> corrected.
> Altering routing and/or adding capacity/capabilities to the existing
> infrastructure is generally better
Yes ... but as mentioned in one of the off-list replies: the original DNS are
from a 3rd party and they had no chance to expand resources ...
best regards
Jürgen Jaritsch
Head of Networ
On Jun 2, 2016, at 3:42 PM, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
> it IS expected behavior that traffic will switch over to the new DNS.
Altering routing and/or adding capacity/capabilities to the existing
infrastructure is generally better, whenever possible, due to the
cache-flushing challenges you're no
Hi Roland,
the difference between old and new DNS are way more capacity and extra DDoS
protection ... it IS expected behavior that traffic will switch over to the new
DNS.
best regards
Jürgen Jaritsch
Head of Network & Infrastructure
ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
Telefon: +43-5-0556-3
On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:24 AM, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
> and that's the reason why we had to move over to a new NS set.
Which the attackers (or their attack tools) will immediately discern, & shift
their targeting accordingly.
Playing games like this with addressing seldom, if ever, accomplishes
39 matches
Mail list logo
