On 2/12/21 06:41, Randy Bush wrote:
iij joined in '97. and helped others who asked. but i'm from the rainy
pacific northwest (of the states). we don't try to push water uphill.
As my Gambian friend would say, "Lead a horse to water, and teach it how
to fish".
My first join was in 2005
>> i must say i am impressed that the ipv6 must be deployed now and it
>> solves it all religion is still being shouted from the street corner
>> 25 years on. it is as if the shouters think they will convince any
>> body or change anything. folk will deploy X when they perceive that
>> the cost:b
On 2/12/21 02:51, Randy Bush wrote:
i must say i am impressed that the ipv6 must be deployed now and it
solves it all religion is still being shouted from the street corner 25
years on. it is as if the shouters think they will convince any body or
change anything. folk will deploy X when the
Hi,
On 11/02/2021 13:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote:
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:50:56 -0800
> From: Doug Barton
>[...] On 2/10/21 5:56 AM, Ca By wrote>
>> The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
>> address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a cel
On Jan 23, 2021, at 11:32 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
>
> Personally, I would
> argue that a full implementation of IPv6 means that v4 could be phased out
> without
> adverse effect on the production network.
I like that definition.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 5:52 PM Izaac wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:53:56AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> > In other words, it proves the exact opposite of your assertion.
>
> Golly. Do you want to tell the 1M+ AWS customers that the services they
> paid ~$280B for last year don't work, or
https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/1001821/
I am running what I believe to be the first RIPE Atlas probe on a Starlink
beta test terminal.
When searching the index of public probes I did not find any other probes
with "spacex" or "starlink" in the descriptions.
This probe is at present not contained
> On 12 Feb 2021, at 12:41, Izaac wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 06:29:42AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Ridiculous… TCP/IP was designed to be a peer to peer system where each
>> endpoint was uniquely
>> addressable whether reachable by policy or not.
>
> I think that is a dramatic over-
On 2/11/21 5:41 PM, Izaac wrote:
IPv6 restores that ability and RFC-1918 is a bandaid for an obsolete protocol.
So, in your mind, IPv4 was "obsolete" in 1996 -- almost three years
before IPv6 was even specified? Fascinating. I could be in no way
mistaken for an IPv4/NAT apologist, but that
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:53:56AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> In other words, it proves the exact opposite of your assertion.
Golly. Do you want to tell the 1M+ AWS customers that the services they
paid ~$280B for last year don't work, or should I?
--
. ___ ___ . . ___
. \/ |\ |\
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 06:29:42AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Ridiculous… TCP/IP was designed to be a peer to peer system where each
> endpoint was uniquely
> addressable whether reachable by policy or not.
I think that is a dramatic over-simplification of the IP design criteria
-- as it was alr
i must say i am impressed that the ipv6 must be deployed now and it
solves it all religion is still being shouted from the street corner 25
years on. it is as if the shouters think they will convince any body or
change anything. folk will deploy X when they perceive that the
cost:benefit is in X'
> On 12 Feb 2021, at 10:25, Tim Howe wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:05:51 +1100
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> Almost everything you buy today works with IPv6. Even the crappy $50 home
>> router does IPv6.
>
> You're testing very different gear than I am. I have not found
> this to
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:05:51 +1100
Mark Andrews wrote:
> Almost everything you buy today works with IPv6. Even the crappy $50 home
> router does IPv6.
You're testing very different gear than I am. I have not found
this to be true, and I look harder than most.
I put every new
> On 12 Feb 2021, at 08:11, Jim Shankland wrote:
>
> On 2/11/21 6:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2021, at 05:55 , Izaac wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 04:04:43AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
without creating partitioned networks.
>>> Ridiculous. Why would you establi
On 2/11/21 6:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 11, 2021, at 05:55 , Izaac wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 04:04:43AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
without creating partitioned networks.
Ridiculous. Why would you establish such a criteria? The defining
characteristic of rfc1918 networks is that
- On Feb 11, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Hi,
You're right and wrong.
> You don't, you wastefully assign a /24 to every unique thing that you think
> needs an internal management IP block (even if there's 5 things that answer
> pings there),
Reword that to: in the late 1990s, so
Hey Folks,
I am looking for a list of the ten most important NYC telecom hotels. Over the
last 15 years carrier business has shifted to a large extent to Secaucus
Equinix & Google has taken over a big part of 111 8th Avenue. What the
important sites today and are any new facilities on the horiz
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 6:13 AM Izaac wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:38:00AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> > None whatsoever. You just have to be really big.
>
> Hi Beel,
That was unnecessary. Sorry I used an S instead of a Z.
> Thanks for backing me up with an example of an organization w
You don't, you wastefully assign a /24 to every unique thing that you think
needs an internal management IP block (even if there's 5 things that answer
pings there), and decide it's too much work to renumber things. Easy for a
big ISP that's also acquired many small/mid-sized ISPs to run out of v4
On 2/11/21 16:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
Ridiculous… TCP/IP was designed to be a peer to peer system where each endpoint
was uniquely
addressable whether reachable by policy or not.
IPv6 restores that ability and RFC-1918 is a bandaid for an obsolete protocol.
Stop making excuses and let’s fix
> On Feb 11, 2021, at 05:55 , Izaac wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 04:04:43AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> without creating partitioned networks.
>
> Ridiculous. Why would you establish such a criteria? The defining
> characteristic of rfc1918 networks is that they are partitioned.
>
>
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:38:00AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> None whatsoever. You just have to be really big.
Hi Beel,
Thanks for backing me up with an example of an organization with
competent network engineering. Their ability to almost infinitely
leverage the existing rfc1918 address spa
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 04:04:43AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> without creating partitioned networks.
Ridiculous. Why would you establish such a criteria? The defining
characteristic of rfc1918 networks is that they are partitioned.
The ability to recognize and exploit partitions within a netwo
Hm.
They are linked now, but when I looked this morning before the
talk started, there wasn't a link to the slides. ^_^;;
Thanks for getting them put up! :)
Matt
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:12 AM Valerie Wittkop wrote:
> Ahem… slides are linked… you must click on the talk title under the
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
