> On Oct 26, 2021, at 9:11 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> There has been some effort to create a governance model for the root server
> system (see
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-15jun18-en.pdf) but I
> believe it has gotten bogged down in the question of “what do you d
On Fri., Nov. 26, 2021, 19:41 Michael Thomas, wrote:
>
> On 11/26/21 4:39 PM, Jean St-Laurent wrote:
>
> But CFOs like monetization. Was that thread about IPv6 or CFO?
>
>
> Amazon's in this case. They are monetizing their lack of v6 support
> requiring you go through all kinds of expensive hoops
On 11/26/21 4:39 PM, Jean St-Laurent wrote:
But CFOs like monetization. Was that thread about IPv6 or CFO?
Amazon's in this case. They are monetizing their lack of v6 support
requiring you go through all kinds of expensive hoops instead of doing
the obvious and routing v6 packets.
Mike
But CFOs like monetization. Was that thread about IPv6 or CFO?
From: Michael Thomas
Sent: November 26, 2021 7:37 PM
To: Oliver O'Boyle
Cc: Jean St-Laurent ; Ca By ; North
American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's
That's a start, I guess. Before all they had was some
On 11/26/21 4:30 PM, Oliver O'Boyle wrote:
AWS has been gradually improving support and adding features. They
just announced this service, which might help with adoption:
https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/aws-nat64-dns64-communication-ipv6-ipv4-services/
That's a start, I gu
AWS has been gradually improving support and adding features. They just
announced this service, which might help with adoption:
https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/11/aws-nat64-dns64-communication-ipv6-ipv4-services/
On Fri., Nov. 26, 2021, 19:28 Michael Thomas, wrote:
>
> On 11/26
On 11/26/21 4:15 PM, Jean St-Laurent wrote:
We now have apple and fb saying ipv6 is faster than ipv4.
If we can onboard Amazon, Netflix, Google and some others, then it is
a done deal that ipv6 is indeed faster than ipv4.
Hence, an easy argument to tell your CFO that you need IPv6 for your
We now have apple and fb saying ipv6 is faster than ipv4.
If we can onboard Amazon, Netflix, Google and some others, then it is a done
deal that ipv6 is indeed faster than ipv4.
Hence, an easy argument to tell your CFO that you need IPv6 for your CDN.
Xmas is coming so the budget seaso
Hi
we see similar problems on ASR1006-X with ESP100 and MIP100. At about
~45 Gbit/s of traffic (on ~30k PPPoE Sessions and ~700k CGN sessions)
the QFP utilization skyrockets from ~45 % straight to ~95 % :(
I don't know if it's the CGN sessions or the traffic/packets causing the
load increase,
On 11/26/21 3:11 PM, Ca By wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:07 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
On 11/26/21 1:44 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote:
Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s
that use iphones.
*Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 tim
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:07 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 11/26/21 1:44 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote:
>
> Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s that use
> iphones.
>
> *Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 times faster than IPv4*
>
>
> https://www.zdnet.
On 11/26/21 1:44 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote:
Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s that
use iphones.
*Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 times faster than IPv4*
https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-tells-app-devs-to-use-ipv6-as-its-1-4-times-faster
With that specific line directly from Apple:
"And when IPv6 is in use, the median connection setup is 1.4 times faster than
IPv4. This is primarily due to reduced NAT usage and improved routing."
There it is, Improved routing.
Jean
From: Jean St-Laurent
Sent: November 26, 2021 4:
Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s that use iphones.
Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 times faster than IPv4
https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-tells-app-devs-to-use-ipv6-as-its-1-4-times-faster-than-ipv4/
Build around that maybe?
Jean
From: Mi
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, 18:59 Max Tulyev, wrote:
> Hi Gavin,
>
Hi Max,
> I thought to do something similar ;)
>
What stopped you creating something? Or did you? Interested :)
> As I can see in the code, you count somebody as a bad actor just because
> of one UDP packet is received. It is a ba
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-1000-series-aggregation-services-routers/200674-Throughput-issues-on-ASR1000-Series-rout.html
So many years since I have used an asr1000 but, honestly you have an esp40 in a
box with 10x10G interfaces? That’s a very underpowered processor
Hi,
We have ...
ASR1006 that has following cards...
1 x ESP40
1 x SIP40
4 x SPA-1x10GE-L-V2
1 x 6TGE
1 x RP2
We've been having latency and packet loss during peak periods...
We notice all is good until we reach 50% utilization on output of...
'show platform hardware qfp active datapath utiliz
Hi Gavin,
I thought to do something similar ;)
As I can see in the code, you count somebody as a bad actor just because
of one UDP packet is received. It is a bad idea, because it is easy to
spoof that packet and make a DoS against some good actor.
Right way: you have to simulate a SIP dialo
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Gobal
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...
Care to explain because the alternative seems pretty self-evident.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Jose Luis Rodriguez"
To: "Jean St-Laurent"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent
Well … YMMV. We’ve been running v6 for years, and it didn’t really make a dent
in spend or boxes or rate of v4 depletion. Big part of the problem in our neck
of the woods is millions of v4-only terminals … as well as large customer/gov
bids requiring tons of v4 address space.
> On Nov 26, 2021
On 26/11/2021 13:52, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote:
Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less
traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address
space. Isn't it?
How to express that in numbers CFO can take to the bank?
"
With a kicking ass pitch
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: November 26, 2021 5:52 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's
On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote:
> Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less
> traffic flow
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 00:53, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> Anecdotally, anyone that's had reason to manually go through logs for port
> 5060 SIP for any public facing ipv4 /32 will see the vast amounts of random
> "things" out there on the internet trying common extension password combos to
> registe
On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote:
Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less
traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address
space. Isn't it?
How to express that in numbers CFO can take to the bank?
Mark.
On 11/12/21 23:47, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
LAG - Micro BFD (RFC7130) provides per constituent livability.
Not sure if this has changed, but the last time I looked into it, Micro
BFD's for LAG's was only supported and functional on point-to-point
Ethernet links.
In cases where you are runni
26 matches
Mail list logo
