Cogent didn't peer with NTT and PCCW in Asia so it's normal if they still
prefer local routes. Otherwise the latency might be at least 100ms.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:50 Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <
l...@6by7.net> wrote:
> This sort of thing in general is not uncommon in my experienc
not to echo cameron's comment too much, but...
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 3:44 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> >but nowadays, some are going all v6.
>
> Where is there v6 only services/content?
>
>>
>>
I don't think any of this matters, really.
Is deploying v6 doable? yes
Is deploying it going to cost som
This sort of thing in general is not uncommon in my experience. Many networks
weight our outbound with local preferences.
Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
l...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in th
William Herrin wrote:
Ever since we started our study, we were quite puzzled by why the 240/4
netblock was regarded so special? Why no one could tell us what led to
its current status, and even after IPv4 was set to transition to IPv6?
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-regist
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 7:51 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> 1)" ... should be ... ":Instead of "hand wave", this is a
> diplomatic expression to challenge the software engineers' knowledge of the
> networking program code for the current case. Ever since we started our
> study, we were q
Dear Seth:
1) " ... should be ... ": Instead of "hand wave", this is a
diplomatic expression to challenge the software engineers' knowledge of
the networking program code for the current case. Ever since we started
our study, we were quite puzzled by why the 240/4 netblock was regarded
You need to understand the source of the traffic and those network polices
, all the pre-pending will do nothing if it avoids cogent . You might have
to look to advertising more or less specific prefixes to get the desired
result
I don’t think this is Asia specific issue
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:33
I think the point Eric was trying to make is that while, indeed, the initial,
stated goal might be to be able to issue certificates to replace those expired
or expiring, there's just a jump/skip/hop to force installation of this root CA
certificate in all browsers, or for Russia to block downloa
Matthew Walster wrote:
IPv6 is technologically superior to IPv4, there's no doubt about that.
It is not. Though IPv6 was designed against OSI CLNP (with 20B,
or, optionally, 40B addresses), IPv6 incorporated many abandoned
ideas of CLNP and XNS already known to be useless or harmful with
exper
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Bill Woodcock
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 11:37 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The role of Internet governance in sanctions
>Perhaps not. My goal is to minimize Internet disconnection. Maybe that’s not
>your goal. I was trying
b...@theworld.com wrote:
I could offer a more philosophical assessment of IPv6 deployment.
Perhaps we're there, we're doing fine. This is how it is going to go.
It's out there, it works (glitches aside), those who want it use it
tho they can't force others to use it so still need to maintain
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I think we'll see a lot more of this from authoritarian regimes in the
future. For anyone unfamiliar with their existing distributed DPI
architecture, google "Russia SORM".
Many nation's have a government CA.
The United States Government has its Federal
> Put another way, by what objective measure is IPv6 deployment seen as
> failing? Other than individuals' impatience. Was there a generally
> agreed upon timeline which wasn't lived up to, for example?
3gpp deployment was going to force it. YouLube enabling ipv6 was going
to convert the world.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:26 AM Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1758773
>
> I think we'll see a lot more of this from authoritarian regimes in the
> future. For anyone unfamiliar with their existing distributed DPI
> architecture, google "Russia SORM".
Point o
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:45 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> >but nowadays, some are going all v6.
>
> Where is there v6 only services/content?
>
V6 only to 100m+ Smartphones and now coming up on millions of home
broadband , we out here
https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/case-st
- Original Message -
> From: "Eric Kuhnke"
> Subject: Russia attempts mandating installation of root CA on clients for TLS
> MITM
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1758773
>
> I think we'll see a lot more of this from authoritarian regimes in the
> future. For anyone unfami
I could offer a more philosophical assessment of IPv6 deployment.
Perhaps we're there, we're doing fine. This is how it is going to go.
It's out there, it works (glitches aside), those who want it use it
tho they can't force others to use it so still need to maintain a
dual-stack if that's of i
On March 10, 2022 at 15:25 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
> In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
>
> “Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are
> potential targets of sanctions.”
>
> What is a “propaganda agency”. A po
Using a few emails...
- otoh, i would likely close such meager services as i provide to russian
- I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet.
- Keeping the rest of the internet as functional as possible
It is not "Russia" doing this. It is the Russian governmen
On 10/03/2022 21:03, Matthew Walster wrote:
If that was feasible, we would likely be using SCTP by now. TCP, UDP,
and ICMP are likely to be the only reliable IP protocols for the
foreseeable future on the internet. (As in, inter-domain)
But QUIC runs on UDP - it is not a new protocol, we are j
On 3/10/22 7:36 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Now when (not if, we all know nothing is perfect) there are issues with
v6 but not v4 I have to figure out why "my internet is slow" when v6 has
problems.
You might find the opposite is true, though. Many dual-stack clients try
both IPv4 and IPv6 and us
On 3/10/22 3:44 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> In my rural market, we're the only option for service, simple
> as that.
We don't care, we don't have to; we're the phone company.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
>but nowadays, some are going all v6.
Where is there v6 only services/content?
>v4-only ISPs will be at a competitive disadvantage
That's such a wild claim I'd love to know where you come to that
conclusion. In my rural market, we're the only option for service, simple
as that. In the urban ar
You’ve started implementation so a policy with virtually no public input on the
day after making your proposal public.
I’m pretty sure that’s not how the Internet works.
-mel
On Mar 10, 2022, at 11:38 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:42 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
I don’t unders
FWIW, most of my ISPs all know about dual stack and want it. I think the
legacy websites, CPE and applications that hard code IPv4 make it a tough
battle - it's easier to just support v4, but nowadays, some are going all
v6. At some point, v4-only ISPs will be at a competitive disadvantage.
ISPs
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, 19:41 Dave Taht, wrote:
> I am deeply concerned by the onrushing move to udp for QUIC,
>
IMO, it's a fad that will die away.
IMHO, QUIC should also one day become its own protocol number also,
>
If that was feasible, we would likely be using SCTP by now. TCP, UDP, and
ICMP
Wish I was. Will be at MTA in MSP, but will be at WISPAPALOOZA. Love to have
a group meet then.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Travis Garrison
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Dave Taht
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
I will b
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:43 AM Dave Taht wrote:
> I am deeply concerned by the onrushing move to udp for QUIC, with udp
> the former province of voip, gaming, request/response and
> videoconferencing traffic.
Hi Dave,
Since QUIC is without value unless it works with widely deployed NAT
there's
I am deeply concerned by the onrushing move to udp for QUIC, with udp
the former province of voip, gaming, request/response and
videoconferencing traffic. I certainly see natted udp ports get used
up rapidly by various tools, and also see timeouts for reuse often
below 30sec.
IMHO, QUIC should als
> On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:42 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> I don’t understand your comment. I don’t think our statements are the same at
> all.
Perhaps not. My goal is to minimize Internet disconnection. Maybe that’s not
your goal. I was trying to give what you wrote the most generous possible
i
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, 11:22 Masataka Ohta,
wrote:
> Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> > Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll
> > be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the
> > price of the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes.
>
> Indeed, w
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1758773
I think we'll see a lot more of this from authoritarian regimes in the
future. For anyone unfamiliar with their existing distributed DPI
architecture, google "Russia SORM".
+1 e07
-mel via cell
On Mar 10, 2022, at 8:46 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the
political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.
I agree with this as well.
History has shown us that the smallest sli
I'm in.
Jeremy Austin
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:38 AM Dennis Burgess
wrote:
> Let me know where and when 😊
>
>
>
> Dennis Burgess
>
> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
> Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
Tom Beecher wrote:
The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time
where there is some forcing event that requires it to be.
Unless that occurs, people will continue to spend time and energy
coming up with ways to squeeze the blood out of v4 that could have
been used t
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
One thing is for certain… If folks had put 0.10 as much effort into deploying
IPv6 as has been put into arguing about whether or not ~17 /8s worth of IPv4
makes a meaningful difference to the internet as a whole, IPv4 would long since
have become irrelevant as i
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 16:01, Joe Greco wrote:
> I am reading your response as to imply that this is somehow my fault
> (for my networks) and that I am a poor leader for not having embraced
> v6. If that's not what you meant, great, because I feel like there's
> been systemic issues.
No, I mean
>
> Google sees over 40% of their users on ipv6,* with superior latency *
>
Uncle Geoff generally debunked this years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt-Xx2CmuQE&ab_channel=NANOG
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:01 AM Ca By wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
>
>> On
>
> Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the
> political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.
>
I agree with this as well.
History has shown us that the smallest sliver of 'interpretation' is likely
to eventually be twisted and explo
Bill,
I don’t understand your comment. I don’t think our statements are the same at
all.
I’m opposed to this particular description of ad-hoc “social justice” in
Internet governance described in your proposal. It’s far too broad and open to
interpretation. You, on the other hand, seem to be r
> On Mar 10, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
> I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for
> unintended consequences is huge.
It sounds like your problem statement and ours are the same
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 15:20, Tom Beecher wrote:
> You appear to run a residential ISP. There are essentially 3 things you
> would have to do to deploy IPv6.
> [...]
>
Putting aside the 'zero value' idea, if you were to decide to take steps
> today , what are your blockers?
>
I'm going to turn t
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> > I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still
> > heavily v4. Mind boggling.
>
> Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll
> be the same in 2042
+1
mh
10 mars 2022 16:34 "jim deleskie" mailto:deles...@gmail.com?to=%22jim%20deleskie%22%20)> a
écrit:
I respect the people and goals here, but strongly echo Mel's statement. This
is a much larger hammer then mail filtering lists. -jim
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 11:26 AM Mel Beckman mailto:m...
Absolutely. This makes for good discussion.
Strictly on the FTTH end of things to make it simpler (since that's where
our growth is). We're very much residential with the commercial customers
being farmers, home based mechanics/construction/horse stables, and the
like - less Netflix and more web
I respect the people and goals here, but strongly echo Mel's statement.
This is a much larger hammer then mail filtering lists.
-jim
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 11:26 AM Mel Beckman wrote:
> In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
>
> “Military and propaganda agencies and
In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
“Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are
potential targets of sanctions.”
What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate for
re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority
I would like to ask an earnest question here, because I work in an
environment where IPv6 has been deployed for more than a decade, and it's
just automatically part of things we do and have to solve for, so I will
openly admit my perspective can be warped. I am truly curious about what
the perceive
Gary,
I'm the owner of the business. I answer a lot of tier 1 support calls. I
read every single ticket summary. It's not denial, it's just that I'm
small enough to be able to follow up on every support issue. You can claim
bull if you want but my evidence can beat up your claim.
On Wed, Mar
So you guys keep combining IPv4 and CGNAT. These two things are not the
same. They do not require each other. If you're small, you get space
straight from ARIN (I got mine in January 2022). If you're big, buy a
block (after completing an ARIN ticket!) If you don't want to pay for a
big v4 bloc
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:55:42AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote:
> > I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still
> > heavily v4. Mind boggling.
>
> Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll
> be the same
maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try
not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that
in itself is hubris.
as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can
not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated t
> On Mar 10, 2022, at 1:24 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> while i abhor the russian invasion of the ukraine, and have put my money
> where my mouth is
(As an aside to others, our friends at the .UA ccTLD have recommended this as a
useful place to donate: https://www.comebackalive.in.ua/donate It’s p
while i abhor the russian invasion of the ukraine, and have put my money
where my mouth is , i worry about the precedent of
setting ourselves up as legislature, police, judge, and jury, and the
long term effects of centralizing such authority. who will we censor
and ostracize next? a walt kelly c
Saku Ytti wrote:
Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll
be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the
price of the insane amount of work and cost dual stack causes.
Indeed, we don't need IPv6 at all at least for the next 20 years,
which is
I very much thank all of you who participated in this drafting effort, and I’m
really happy that the document is out:
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet-Sanctions.pdf
Now we can focus on operationalization. Mailing list, web site, etc. are in
the proce
56 matches
Mail list logo
