:15 PM Amos Rosenboim via NANOG
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
Roland,
Thanks for your comments.
As much as I love to be a network purist who hates state maintenance in the
core of the network, the sad reality is that these devices are there and will
remain there for the foreseeable
get some deployment
feedback on NPTv6 in service provider networks.
Any such feedback is appreciated.
Cheers,
Amos
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 Feb 2025, at 14:41, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
External sender - pay attention
On Feb 3, 2025, at 17:03, Amos Rosenboim via NANOG wrote:
The requirement
Thank you Joshua for the quick and detailed response.
I agree with everything you mentioned below, and this is why we are
considering it.
To your questions and comments below:
The requirement for state full traffic flow is given by the customer.
The logic behind it is to avoid unnecessary pagi
Hi,
We are implementing an CGNAT + IPv6 firewall project for a mobile service
provider.
One of the project goals is to support scale out all active deployment of the
stateful devices.
One of the challenges of inserting these stateful devices into the network is
the requirement that all packet
precated is anycast for 6to4 relays:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7526
I believe Hurricane Electric still hosts 6to4 relays.
Regards,
Jordi
El 14/5/19 17:32, "NANOG en nombre de Amos Rosenboim"
mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> en nombre de
a...@oasis-tech.net<mailto:a...@oasis-
.
Thanks,
Amos Rosenboim
--
Owen,
Let me clarify a few points:
1. I am in favor of end to end connectivity and IPv6 can help restore this.
2. In the fixed broadband portion of the network this is the case.
IPv6 is routed to the subscriber CPE.
Firewall on the CPE is turned on by default, but can be turned off by the user.
Hello NANOG,
We are discussing internally and wanted to get more opinions and especially
more data on what are people actually doing.
We are running an ISP network with about 150K fixed broadband users, running
dual stack (IPv4 behind CGNAT).
On the ISP network IPv6 is simply routed, and is fir
Hello,
Lately we have been troubleshooting complaints from customers of several ISPs
about
relatively low results when testing to Netflix's fast.com
When we started troubleshooting we notice the following:
1. When the latency to the fast.com test server is ~70ms results are
significantly lower t
9 matches
Mail list logo
