Re: U.S. test of national alerts on Oct. 4 at 2:20pm EDT (1820 UTC)

It’s been absurd for a while now…Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...On Oct 6, 2023, at 1:15 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 2:58 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: The Disability Advocacy Community has been extensively involved with CMAS/WEA sinc

Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

It was intended to detect congestion. The obvious response was in some way to pace the sender(s) so that it was alleviated. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Sep 7, 2023, at 11:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > >  > >> On 9/7/23 09:51, Saku Ytti wrote: >> >> Perhap

Re: Caveat emptor: avoid Inseego 5G products unless you still believe in classful routing

If they think classful IPv4 is the state of the art, I would not assume they have heard of IPv6.Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...On Mar 28, 2023, at 12:45 PM, Matt Harris wrote:Matt Harris​VP OF INFRASTRUCTUREFollow us on LinkedIn!matt.har...@netfire.net816-256-5446www

Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC

> What's the group's current thought on emergence or prevalence of > IPv6-only hosts ? They aren’t needed; dual stack hosts will work just fine in a single stack network. When they’re needed, they will be normal but nobody will care.

Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Nov 2, 2022, at 5:50 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > In the early years of the > NomCom, I believe there were a small number of cases of a 3 year term > but only for an AD who had already successfully served for 2 years. There

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

> On Aug 9, 2022, at 8:06 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also in > 1995: > “I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 > catastrophically collapse.” In 1998 I invited Mr Metcalfe to address the IETF

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Sounds like a comment made on the FCC TAC in 1994: “there is no broadband market above 1 MBPS.” Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On May 28, 2022, at 1:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >  >> >> Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is >>

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Apr 2, 2022, at 5:57 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > 1)" ... darknet ... ":I am not aware of this terminology. > Nonetheless, I believe that bringing in a not commonly known word into a > discussion like this is jus

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Mar 27, 2022, at 12:18 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > I am baffled by why does it cause problems on this mailing list. Are you aware that NANOG is not an IETF list? What would you guess might be the topic of a list associate

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Mar 27, 2022, at 12:18 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > Honestly, I am still trying to figure out what is the "required" etiquette, > since what I have received were mostly "complaints" not constructive > "instructions" (i.e.,

Re: "Permanent" DST

> On Mar 15, 2022, at 1:24 PM, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > > 2 - I like how american politics is capable of creating new problems; where > did this bill come from in the first place? And who's lobbying? According to the universal time law, the US is on Standard Time unless a state chooses Dayligh

Re: "Permanent" DST

> On Mar 15, 2022, at 1:01 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > We already have this problem with Arizona, which never changes time for the > summer. Except for the Navajo Nation…

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

My viewpoint, and the reason I recommended against it, is that it gives Putin something he has wanted for a while, which is a Russia in which he is in control of information flows. We do for him what he has wanted for perhaps 20 years, and come out the bad guys - “the terrible west gut us off!”.

Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Mar 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > 2)On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically > reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4 netblock > back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means whether to > change the

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

> On Mar 11, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > Google's statistics... I'm not sure which of you I'm replying to. The comment was made on NANOG the other day that we should discount Google statistics because they have been promoting IPv6 for a decade. It's true that they have been doing s

Re: Russia to disconnect from global Internet

Of course, Ukraine had asked ICANN and the Root Server Operators to disconnect. We declined, but it may be done for us. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Mar 6, 2022, at 1:59 PM, Jared Brown wrote: > > Accidentally put the wrong link for the translation. > >

Re: Ukraine request yikes

China has worried that the root server operators would do such a thing to them, and I have argued that it is contrary to our published principles (RaSSAC055) and or practice. “We have never done so; what would that serve?” I have the same question here. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in

Re: home router battery backup

> On Jan 12, 2022, at 10:37 AM, Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:18 AM Andy Ringsmuth wrote: > Given that most people barely even know what their home router is, I suspect > the percentage would be somewhere south of 1 percent. Outside of my home, I > hon

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On Nov 27, 2021, at 7:39 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > > Mark Tinka wrote: > >>> On 11/27/21 17:07, Masataka Ohta wrote: >>> Because lengthy IPv6 addresses mean a lot more opex than IPv4. >> I disagree > > Try to type in raw IPv6 addresses. People are likely to use a technology originally devel

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

> 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

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Nov 18, 2021, at 5:15 PM, John Gilmore wrote: > > Keeping the price of IPv4 addresses reasonable means that dual-stack > servers can continue to be deployed at reasonable cost, so that it > doesn't matter whether clients have

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

I have read through this thread, and you'll pardon me if it sounds like yet another rehash on yet another list. You might take a look at https://packetlife.net/blog/2010/oct/14/ipv4-exhaustion-what-about-class-e-addresses/, which responds to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-cla

Re: . (was IPv6 and CDN's)

> On Oct 26, 2021, at 9:25 AM, Bryan Fields wrote: > > Can you explain how it would work? Say you have a root server operator who > starts messing up, is there any ability to remove them? You might look at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-15jun18-en.pdf. Yes, there is

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Oct 23, 2021, at 1:55 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 15:17 Fred Baker wrote: >> I think you will find that there are some places in which getting IPv6 >> network serv

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

I think you will find that there are some places in which getting IPv6 network service has been difficult, and as a result even IPv6-capable equipment is not reachable by IPv6. Those are, however, few and far between. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Oct 23, 20

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

I’m not sure I disagree, but let throw in a point of consideration. Historically, as you note, the caller pays the toll. However, the caller also CHOSE to call, even though the called party might find the call irritating. With a CDN, the network is out there hoping to be called, and the user mak

Re: Never push the Big Red Button (New York City subway failure)

> On Sep 10, 2021, at 1:33 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > The utility let them know that they were going to be doing some maintenance > work in the area. No impact expected, but out of an abundance of caution, > they transfer over to generators. After the utility lets them know that the > mai

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Sep 8, 2021, at 1:31 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > If the mid size eyeballs knew ipv4 is going away in 10, 15, 20 years > whichever it is, then they'd of course have to start moving too, > because no upstream. And they would fight

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 1:26 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > > I started wondering if there are areas where we can disable IPv4 today. There are places in which it is disabled today, for at least some services.

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

> On Aug 6, 2021, at 8:22 AM, Noah wrote: > > Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6? > > Majority of people I know (due to economic factors) own lowend android > handsets with no support for v6. This group forms majority of eyeballs that > contribute revenue to local Telecoms who

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

> On Aug 6, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > v6 isn't a solution today for v4 problems. I don't know that IPv6 was ever intended to be a solution to IPv4 problems per se. It was intended to be an IPv4 replacement to provide connectivity. signature.asc Description: Message signed wi

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

I would add packet loss rate. Should be zero, and if it isn’t, it points to an underlying problem. Sent from my iPad > On May 31, 2021, at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman > wrote: > >  > I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure broadband > everyone can agree on. Is there a

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On May 28, 2021, at 11:55 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > I know multiple people that had issues with slow Internet during the > last year as two adults were working from home and 1-3 children were > also schooling from home. Parents had to arrange work calls around > their kids classroom time and aroun

Re: AWS Using Class E IPv4 Address on internal Routing

The "RFC" you're looking for is probably https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02, which was not agreed to and so has no RFC number. The fundamental issue that was raised during that discussion was that while repurposing class e would provide a few more IPv4 addresses and so delay th

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

True, Sean, but Texas has its own ISO. The counterpart wouldn’t be “Delaware has rolling blackouts”, but “The Eastern ISO has following blackouts”. Sent from my iPad > On Feb 15, 2021, at 8:49 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: > >  > >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021, Cory Sell via NANOG wrote: >> adoption. Sure

Re: dumb question: are any of the RIR's out of IPv4 addresses?

You may find this article interesting: https://blog.apnic.net/2019/12/13/keep-calm-and-carry-on-the-status-of-ipv4-address-allocation/ Sent from my iPad > On Feb 16, 2021, at 3:07 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > >  > Basically are there places that you can't get allocations? If so, what is > hap

Re: DoD IP Space

Streams Transport and PIP. Good grief. V7 was Robert Ullman’s CATNIP. He wanted to sell hardware to everyone, and V7 was the interchange protocol between IPv4, IPX, and CLNS. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Feb 15, 2021, at 12:41 PM, Valdis Klētnieks > wro

Re: DoD IP Space

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.

Re: DoD IP Space

> On Jan 22, 2021, at 10:28 PM, Valdis Klētnieks > wrote: > > And how would you define "fully implement v6", anyhow? I would define it this way: if something can be done using IPv4, it has an obvious IPv6 counterpart that is usable by the same community to the extent that the community is i

Re: DoD IP Space

I recently had a discussion with an Asian ISP that was asking the IETF to PLEASE re-declare DoD space to be private space so that they could use it. This particular ISP uses IPv6 extensively (a lot of their services are in fact IPv6-only) but has trouble with its enterprise customers. Frankly, e

Cox contact?

Would an engineer from Cox please contact me privately?

Re: Is there *currently* a shortage of IPv4 addresses?

> On Aug 4, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: > > The only other option then becomes the secondary transfer markets, where > costs to acquire v4 space are much higher than what direct allocations from > the RIRs used to be. > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:35 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. > w

Re: [v6ops] Question about "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers"

send your comments to if you wish. > > Thanks, > Fernando > > > > > Forwarded Message > Subject: [v6ops] Question about "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets > with Extension Headers" > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:55:45 -0700 >

Re: MAP-T in production

For the record, we are asking similar questions about 464XLAT in v6ops. If you are deploying it, please advise Jordi Palet Martinez. For those unfamiliar with them, MAP-T and 464XLAT are each deployment frameworks for IPv4/IPv6 translation, as described in RFCs 4164, 4166, 4167, and 7915. Sent

Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T residential

> On Feb 18, 2020, at 4:00 PM, Ca By wrote: > > I am not a fan of quic or any udp traffic. My suggestion was that Google use > an new L4 instead of UDP, but that was too hard for the Googlers. The argument I have heard is that residential firewalls often block anything that is *not* UDP or T

Re: power to the internet

> This time it’s PG&E all alone, but still fallout from back then. Too much > liability and they’ve not maintained the infrastructure and so they decided > that to reduce the liability costs it’s cheaper to blackout. Same story again > different colors. PG&E making a mint while people get screwe

Re: Elephant in the room - Akamai

Sent from my iPad > On Dec 5, 2019, at 9:03 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > For SP-grade routers, there isn't "code" that needs to be added to combat > buffer bloat. All an admin has to do is cut back on the number of packet > buffers on each interface -- an interface setting, you see. A

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

> On Dec 3, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:58:59 -0800, FREDERICK BAKER said: > >> I think he is saying that companies like Reliance JIO have started with a /22 >> of IPv4 and a /32 (or more) of IPv6, > > As I said - you need IPv4 space to dual-stack. Ho

Re: Russian government’s disconnection test

> On Nov 1, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > If somehow all the transatlantic (and/or transpacific) cables are offline; > will the whole internet outside of the US stop working, too? This has nothing to do with cables, and everything to do with information control and pol

Re: California public safety power shutdowns

On Oct 9, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: > Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison have started Public > Safety Power Shut-offs (PSPS) in California wildfire high-risk areas. > > Shut-offs are taking place in three phases. PG&E began shutoffs at midnight > in Northern Cali

Re: Update to BCP-38?

On Oct 3, 2019, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > You still need a IPv6 version of RFC 1812. If we were to start with the current draft, I would probably want to start over, and have people involved from multiple operators. That said, let me give you some background on RFC 1812. The develop

Re: Update to BCP-38?

On Oct 3, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > On 10/3/19 8:22 AM, Fred Baker wrote: >> And on lists like this, I am told that there is no deployment - that >> nobody wants it, and anyone that disagrees with that assessment has >> lost his or her mind. That

Re: Update to BCP-38?

Sent from my iPad > On Oct 3, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > On 10/3/19 8:42 AM, Fred Baker wrote: >> >> >>>> On Oct 3, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: >>> >>> Someone else mentioned that "IPv6 has been a

Re: Update to BCP-38?

> On Oct 3, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > Someone else mentioned that "IPv6 has been around for 25 years, and why > is it taking so long for everyone to adopt it?" I present as evidence > the lack of a formally-released requirements RFC for IPv6. It suggests > that the "scien

Re: Update to BCP-38?

On Oct 3, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > It appears that the only parallel paper for IPv6 is > draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-04, _Requirements for IPv6 Routers_, which > currently carries a copyright of 2018. It's a shame that this document > is still in limbo; witness this quote: "

Re: This DNS over HTTP thing

On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:25 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > Is there an official name for it I should be searching for? The IETF calls it "DoH", pronounced like "Dough". https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/doh/about/ There are a number of such services from Google, Amazon, and others. Firefox and Chrom

Re: [nanog] Cisco GLBP/HSRP question -- Has it ever been dis

> On Aug 4, 2019, at 5:29 PM, Chriztoffer Hansen > wrote: > > The question was simply about if GLBP/HSRP had ever been up in discussions in > the IETF concerning publishing the protocol specifications as a standard. (As > pointed out. I totally forgot about the RFC concerning HSRP.) Haven't

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

> On Aug 4, 2019, at 8:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote: > > I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network > operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found, reached, > and used to end innocent lives? I''d suggest reducing their reputation rankings, as r

Re: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

Between overlaid ads and the thing trying to force an account, i’d Describe it as a waste of time. Now, a page that delivered the data advertised... Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Aug 3, 2019, at 3:36 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote: > >  > Feel free to open live.in

Re: 44/8

The fundamental reason given, from several sources, was that our experience with IPv4 address trading says that no matter how many IPv4 addresses we create or recover, we won't obviate the need for a replacement protocol. The reasons for that are two: (1) IPv4 isn't forward compatible with anyth

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

According to this, Weather Underground was purchased by the Weather Channel and firmed “The Weather Company”, and that was in turn purchased by IBM last year. https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/weather-underground-bought-by-ibm.html Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interestin

Re: Gi Firewall for mobile subscribers

> On Apr 11, 2019, at 8:43 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > I’m pretty sure that no matter how good your power management is, any cell > phone’s battery will die long before its /64 can be scanned. And that might be the point of the scan - not to find the addresses in use, but to deplete the batte

Re: Stupid Question maybe?

On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:50 AM, Brian Kantor wrote: > /24 is certainly cleaner than 255.255.255.0. > > I seem to remember it was Phil Karn who in the early 80's suggested > that expressing subnet masks as the number of bits from the top end > of the address word was efficient, since subnet masks wer

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On Oct 16, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Wayne Bouchard wrote: > Well, simply put, the idea is that you should be able to compensate > for a certain amount of deviation from accepted usage as long as its > still within what the protocol allows (or can be read to allow) but > that you yourself should act with

Re: Oct. 3, 2018 EAS Presidential Alert test

> On Oct 7, 2018, at 12:23 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote: > > That was one advantage of the old air raid siren system, it was difficult to > ignore and required nothing special to receive (hearing > impaired excepted.) Where I grew up, the “Civil Defense Warning” was used for air raids, nuclear

Re: tcp md5 bgp attacks?

Well, think about RST attacks, in which someone bombards a TCP connection with TCP RESET in the hopes of threading a needle and taking it down. It's not the end of the world - BGP restarts - but there is an outage. The simplest way to protect against that (and against having someone with a hijac

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 2:18 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> There's no way to change the IPv4 address to be larger > > http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html > > There's always a way. > > Re

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Todd Underwood wrote: > > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake I understand the comment, but I see some issues with it. The problem isn't that IPv6 isn't backward-

Re: How to build an IPv6-only internal network?

> On Jul 8, 2015, at 12:53 PM, Cryptographrix wrote: > > Hypothetically, I want to build an internal network that runs just IPv6 and > apply stateless ACLs at redundant external connections. > > How do users access the current v4 address space? There are two short answers: (1) they don't (2)

Re: Residential VSAT experiences?

> On Jun 22, 2015, at 3:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > Two-way satellite systems based on SV's in geostationary orbit (like > the two you're considering) have high latency. 22,000 miles out, > another 22,000 miles back and do it again for the return packet. > You'll start around 500ms latency

Re: Meeting IRS requirements for encrypted transmission of FTI

Dumb question. So this is essentially physical or link layer encryption. That’s fine out on the wire, but is decrypted in memory (if I understand what you said), and requires point to point connectivity to be any better than that. Are you aware of anyone at NIST or other places suggesting end to

Re: IPv6 allocation plan, security, and 6-to-4 conversion

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Eric Louie wrote: > > If I have to do 6-to-4 conversion, is there any way to do that with > multiple diverse ISP connections, or am I "restricted" to using one > entry/exit point? (If that's true, do I need to allocate a separate block > of addresses that would be

Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?

On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:07 AM, John Orthoefer wrote: > >> On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> >> […] and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse. > > > People don’t use in-addr.arpa anymore? ;) > > johno They do use t

Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?

On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote: > Wondering if some of the long-time list members > can shed some light on the question--why is the > .gov top level domain only for use by US > government agencies? Where do other world > powers put their government agency domains? > > With t

Re: Bare TLD resolutions

IMHO, since ICANN has created the situation, the ball is in ICANN’s court to say how this works without disrupting name services. Their ill-informed hipshot is not our emergency. On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Pursuant to > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-col

Re: Prefix hijacking, how to prevent and fix currently

On Aug 28, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Tarun Dua wrote: > AS Number 43239 > AS Name SPETSENERGO-AS SpetsEnergo Ltd. > > Has started hijacking our IPv4 prefix, while this prefix was NOT in > production, it worries us that it was this easy for someone to hijack > it. > > http://bgp.he.net/AS43239#_prefixe

Re: Carrier Grade NAT

On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would > make a significant difference. Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now; the question is whether their customers tick the box appr

Re: Carrier Grade NAT

On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would > make a significant difference. Per Microsoft public statements, they are now moving address space allocated them in Brazil to the US to fill a major service shortfa

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

On Jul 14, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since > many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do > with Internet access. And there are a number of ISPs with multiple ASNs. If you look up the his

Re: Net Neutrality...

Relevant article by former FCC Chair http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: We hit half-million: The Cidr Report

On May 1, 2014, at 4:10 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > Pardon my ignorance here. But in a carrier-grade NAT implementation that > serves say 5000 users, when happens when someone from the outside tries > to connect to port 80 of the shared routable IP ? More to the point, your trust boundar

Re: The Cidr Report

On Apr 26, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Deepak Jain wrote: > Does anyone have doomsday plots of IPv6 prefixes? We are already at something > like 20,000 prefixes there, and a surprising number of deaggregates (like > /64s) in the global table. IIRC, a bunch of platforms will fall over at > 128K/256K IP

Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP

On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R wrote: > 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections > is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat boots. And not > particularly productive. That is one of my two big take-aways from this conversation. T

Re: NAT64 and matching identities

On Nov 19, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:06:52PM -0500, Justin M. Streiner wrote: >> Other IPv6 transition mechanisms appear to be no less thorny than >> NAT64 for a variety of reasons. > > Some of us who worked on the NAT64/DNS64 combination were content

Re: IP Fragmentation - Not reliable over the Internet?

On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > If I send a packet out as a legitimate series of fragments, what is the chance > that they will get dropped somewhere in the middle of the path between the > emitting host and the receiving host? > > To my thinking, the answer to that question

Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

On Apr 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 04/24/2013 03:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> >> Frankly, the ISPs likely to be tracking this list aren't the people holding >> back there. To pick on one that is fairly public, Verizon Wireline is >>

Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

I guess my question is what the difference is between the sharp-demand curve (Tony's latest, which perhaps mirrors APNIC's final few months of IPv4) and the straight-line curve. My read is that we're arguing about the difference between "late 2013" and "some time in 2014". I suspect that what mo

Re: De-funding the ITU

On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, John Levine wrote: > Please learn a little more about the ITU before doing so. There is > more to the ITU than the dysfunctional ITU-T, and the political > fallout from the US being seen as a big rich bully taking its wallet > and going home is likely not worth the

Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers

If you want to get into software rewriting, the simplest thing I might come up with would be to put TCBs in some form of LRU list and, at a point where you need a port back, close the TCB that least recently did anything. My understanding is that this was implemented 15 years ago to manage SYN a

Re: IPv6 Netowrk Device Numbering BP

On Nov 1, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > We should better introduce partially decimal format for > IPv6 addresses or, better, avoid IPv6 entirely. With respect, it is already possible to use the decimal subset if you wish. For example, you could write 2001:dba::192:168:2:1 It wo

Re: abha ahuja

On Oct 20, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > abha ahuja died this day in 2001. wonderful person, good netizen, good > researcher. sigh. Yes. She is missed.

Re: IPv4 address length technical design

On Oct 5, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > Well, XNS (Xerox Networking System from PARC) used basically MAC > addresses. Less a demonstration of success than that it has been > tried. But it's where ethernet MAC addresses come from, they're just > XNS addresses and maybe this has changed bu

Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)

It would be really nice if people making statements about the end to end principle would talk about the end to end principle. http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf The abstract of the paper states the principle: This paper presents a design principle that helps g

Re: Testing 1gbps bandwidth

On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:40 AM, wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:32:47 +0400, Luqman Kondeth said: >> Is anyone aware of any public IPerf servers in the middle east or close >> by?(Europe) or anywhere that can do udp?. I have a 1gbps Internet link >> which I've been asked to show that it has 1gbps

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On Jul 13, 2012, at 8:05 AM, TJ wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM, -Hammer- wrote: > >> OK. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get some flak for this but I'll share this >> question and it's background anyway. Please be gentle. >> >> In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or "non-routabl

Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD

or for which the signature fails. You may find the following exchange with my military son, whose buddies apparently call me "skynet", amusing... Begin forwarded message: > From: Fred Baker > Date: May 9, 2012 12:55:40 PM PDT > To: Colin Baker <...> > Subject: Re: skyne

Re: World IPv6 Launch Day - June 6, 2012

On Jan 18, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Shumon Huque wrote: > But, checking www.worldipv6launch.org just now shows that it > have IPv6 records now: I just successfully accessed it using IPv6. The service is real, not just the DNS record. The address I accessed it at was 2600:809:600::3f50:411.

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

through all of your mail servers. > > Hi Eric, > > The only relatively recent thing I'm aware of in the Congress is the > Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011. Since you bring it up, I sent this to Eric a few moments ago. Like you, IANAL, and this is n

Re: Sad IPv4 story?

On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Franck Martin wrote: > I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area > desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way > they would like… > > This is just a data point. We're going to be hearing a lot more o

Re: Traceroute explanation

This is just a guess, but I'll bet the route changed while you were measuring it. Traceroute sends a request, awaits a response, sends a request, ... Suppose that the route was 172.28.0.1 -> 10.16.0.2 -> 41.200.16.1 -> 172.17.2.25 -> 213.140.58.10 ->

  1   2   >