> On Mar 26, 2022, at 06:35 , Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> Hi, Owen:
>
> 0)Re: Ur. Pt. 2):This topic is such a tongue-twister. Let's put it
> aside for now, until I can properly convey the EzIP concept and scheme to you.
>
> 00)Re: Ur. Pt. 4):Okay, I was concerned about how to
Hello Ohta-San
I tried exactly what you suggested for IPv6 with RFC 8505 and 8929. But to few
people in mainstream networks realize what you just said.
It started long long ago with the idea to use inverse ARP for the registration,
I guess it is still doable but I am not optimistic about adopti
[cid:image001.png@01D842A4.69CBE6F0]
Hmm.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 11:55 AM
To: Philip Homburg ; nanog@nanog.org; 'jordi.palet'
(jordi.pa...@consulintel.es)
Subject: RE: V6 still not supported
S
Seems that we lost sync.
I would not rephrase so I made it a draft to make it easy to socialize:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt-00.html
The goal is NOT to allow any IPv4 host to talk to any IPv6 host. For that I
agree you need the traditional transition mechanis
Philip Homburg wrote:
It should be clear that an IPv4-only host only speaks IPv4. This means
that communication with an IPv4-only host has to be IPv4.
This did not have to be true, had there been an extension/option
standardized at the same time as IPv6 for IPv4 packets to be gateway'd
int
Joshua Mallad wrote:
I am growing extremely frustrated by the lack of available internet address
space.
Then, let's have NAT with 32bit port numbers.
How many times are you going to extend and hack away at IPv4,
Perhaps, only once, which means NAT.
Anyway, it is a lot less than hacks to t
Philip Homburg wrote:
Any form of communication with the current IPv4 internet requires some
sort of CGNAT.
Any form of communication with the current IPv4/IPv6 mixed internet,
except for dual stack, also requires some sort of NAT.
Technically, A+P (address
plus port) mapping is a bit differ
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> After so many times reinventing the wheel, IP uber alles is a
> better goal. Speaking as somebody familiar with the effort.
I'm afraid you misunderstand my point.
John Gilmore recently gave a good history of the ARP origin.
ARP is perfectly good for CSMA/CD bu
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 6:22 AM Philip Homburg
wrote:
> >If by ?straightforward transition plan? one means a clear and rational
> set of
> >options that allows networks to plan their own migration from IPv4-only
> to IPv
> >6, while maintaining connectivity to IPv4-only hosts and with a level of
I don't think we can say that NAT64 is a disaster. I will say so if we want to
keep IPv4 only hosts in the "6" side, of course it doesn't work. However,
that's why we moved further with 464XLAT. And the demonstration is that most of
the operators are using it.
I think in your picture you're mis
I usually keep quiet on this list, but this topic is relevant to me as a
smaller (non-BGP level) network operator who would really love to see more
IPv6 deployment.
I don't have experience deploying internet technologies at the highest
level, so I can't say I fully understand the difficulties surro
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Mu wrote:
[...]
While I agree that many consumers don't place much value on their own data,
resulting in them not particularly caring about that data, in my experience it
often stems from ignorance of what can be done with that data (if they even know
that the data is being
>The only far ressemblance with 6to4 is the thing that was actually nice in the
> design, the automatic word in automatic tunnel. Which for the rest of us mean
>s stateless. Compared to CGNATs that is huge.
Any form of communication with the current IPv4 internet requires some
sort of CGNAT. We no
> > If there is a magical transition technology that allows an IPv6-only host t
> o
> > talk to an IPv4-only host, then let's deploy it.
>
> DNS64/NAT64, DS-Lite, 6rd, 464XLAT, MAP-T, MAP-E, ? pick a transition
> protocol and see what happens! (with more coming every year...)
The problem with th
FWIW, MAP has been deployed by few operators (in at least 3 continents that I
am aware of).
Charter communications is one of the public references (see NANOG preso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfYHCpfr_w).
MAP (CPE function) has been supported in OpenWRT software (as well as many CPE
vendo
>A host in the Internet that wants to talk to a host in China would require an
>update to parse new DNS double-A (realm, address) records to encapsulate the p
>acket IP-in-IP, outer src= 240.0.0.1 outer dest=240.0.0.2. The router that ser
>ves the shaft at level 1 attracts 240.0.0.0/8 within realm
>If by ?straightforward transition plan? one means a clear and rational set of
>options that allows networks to plan their own migration from IPv4-only to IPv
>6, while maintaining connectivity to IPv4-only hosts and with a level of effor
>t reasonable comparable to just running IPv4, then I would
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
Overlap here refers to network address space address space, a
fundamental part of this discussion. Formerly separate networks
containing separately managed rfc1918 spaces are prone to overlap
require ingenious solutions for end-to-end traffic without
renumberi
I'm seeing the same thing from my edge routers in Toronto and New York but
am discarding the route on each due to it being RPKI invalid. Looks like a
potential hijack by a Russian ISP based on the origin ASN.
NLNOG RING also shows some of their peers accepting the invalid
announcement while others
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:33:05PM +, Drew Weaver wrote:
> Is anyone else seeing this route destined for Twitter in the US being
> directed through 8359 announced by 8342?
>
> 104.244.42.0/24
>
> Just curious, replies off list welcome.
Seems visible in a handful of places:
$ w3m -dump
'htt
Is anyone else seeing this route destined for Twitter in the US being directed
through 8359 announced by 8342?
104.244.42.0/24
Just curious, replies off list welcome.
-Drew
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> I think the advice in the draft, and on the quoted page of Google cloud
> docs is that you can use whatever address space you want for your voc
> network. I think it also says that choosing poorly could make portions if
> the internet unreachable.
>
> I don't see that
22 matches
Mail list logo
