r software!
> https://www.gofundme.com/savewifi
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Kriewitz
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
>>> 2) What are the most common ways of managing the routing of delegated
>>> pref
On 2015-11-20 15:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Have a simple couple of questions here.
>>
>> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
>> reference to th
Hi,
Have a simple couple of questions here.
In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
prefixes it delegates. Perhaps I missed it, but I somewhat expected the
omission of this responsibility would b
Congrats to you and your team John!
I presume Comcast Business is still a work in progress?
- Jim
On 7/24/2014 08:08, Brzozowski, John wrote:
> FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions:
>
> http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-i
Can't seem to get to 92.43.96.0/21 (specifically 92.43.96.130 ... in
Salzburg Austria) from Comcast Business in the Bay Area (traceroute
stops close to provider edge).
Works from Verizon FiOS down in LA, and a HE.net host in Fremont.
Comcast folks may want to look at this. :-)
- Jim
On 6/1/2012 12:21, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:06:24AM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> On 6/1/12 7:04 AM, Brzozowski, John wrote:
>>> Jimmy,
>>>
>>> Trust me, I work for Comcast and run the IPv6 program. This has been the
>>> case for nearly 7 years. We can take some of the ite
On 6/1/2012 11:06, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 6/1/12 7:04 AM, Brzozowski, John wrote:
>> Jimmy,
>>
>> Trust me, I work for Comcast and run the IPv6 program. This has been the
>> case for nearly 7 years. We can take some of the items below off list.
>>
>> We have launched IPv6 for residential broad
On 11/9/2011 08:58, Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 11/9/11 11:54 AM, "Blake T. Pfankuch" wrote:
This appears directed at the Home market. Any word on the Business Class
market even as a /128?
Business Class is coming later. It won't hurt to contact the Business
Class sales number and ask about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/19/2010 11:58, Dan White wrote:
> You should be using 192.168.2.0 for documented examples,or at least
> private
> space. Configs like this tend to get cut and pasted into routers and
> get
> changed only when they don't work.
Should that be 192.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/7/2010 22:53, Peter Beckman wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>
>> David Conrad wrote:
>>> Perhaps a bit off-topic, but some folks might get support calls...
>>>
>>> http://وزارة-الأتصالات.مصر/
>>
>> That actually looks quite ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/26/2010 03:36, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I fail to see how link local is any more difficult than any
>> other IPv6 address.
>
> They're different because you have to know your local network
> interfa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/23/2010 06:17, Clue Store wrote:
>
>
>> But none of this does what NAT does for a big enterprise, which
>> is to *hide internal topology*. Yes, addressing the privacy
>> concerns that come from using
>> lower-64-bits-derived-from-MAC-address is r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/23/2010 05:42, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:26 UTC, Steve Bertrand
>> wrote:
>>> - in WHOIS, I have ns1 and ns2.onlyv6.com listed as the
>>> authoritative name servers
>>>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/2010 22:18, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 4/22/2010 05:34, Sim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/2010 22:00, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>> On 2010-04-22 07:1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin wrote:
>> On the other hand, I could swear I've seen a draft where the PC
>> picks up random unused addresses in the lower 64 for each new
>> outbound connection for anon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/21/2010 03:38, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:16:10 -0700 Owen DeLong
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Frankly, when you hear people strongly using the argument
>>> stateful firewalling == NAT, you start to wonder if they've
>>> ever seen a statef
On 4/9/2010 15:42, Benjamin Billon wrote:
>
>>> This is also blocking Sina, Netease, Yahoo.cn and other major
>>> Chinese ISP/ESP. Am I the only to think this is not very smart?
>>
>> It depends. I'am not a fan of country blocking. But in my case it can
>> work for a home server. You could adapt th
On 4/4/2010 19:16, Mark Smith wrote:
<-snip->
> Actually the IEEE have never called it "Ethernet", it's all been IEEE
> 802.3 / XXX{BASE|BROAD}-BLAH.
>
> "Ethernet", assuming version 1 and 2, strictly means thick coax, vampire
> taps and AUI connectors running at (half-duplex) 10Mbps. I saw some of
On 4/4/2010 17:20, Barry Shein wrote:
> I still believe that had as much to do with the collapse of the Soviet
> Union as the million other politicians who wish to take credit.
>
> It's arguable that UUCP (and Usenet, email, etc that it carried) was
> one of the most powerful forces for change in m
On 4/4/2010 12:18, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
>
>>> File transfer wasn't multihop
>>>
>> It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
>> site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain i
On 4/4/2010 08:46, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
>> David Andersen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
>>> machine in a batch, re
On 4/3/2010 01:03, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It was thought that we would not have nearly so many people connected
>> to the internet. It was expected that most things connecting to the
>> internet would be minicomputers and mainframes.
>
> It took some visionary and creative
On 4/2/2010 21:23, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Anyway, I see it as pretty much moot, since many major players (Comcast,
>> Google, etc) are in the midst of major IPv6 deployments as we speak.
>> Eventually you will have to jump on the bandwagon too. :-)
>>
> clue0: the isp for which i work deployed
On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc]
>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>>
>
>
>> So, jump thro
On 4/2/2010 17:22, Randy Bush wrote:
> ipv4 spae is not 'running out.' the rirs are running out of a free
> resource which they then rent to us. breaks my little black heart.
>
> even if, and that's an if, ipv6 takes off, ipv4 is gonna be around for a
> lng while. when 95% of the world has e
On 4/1/2010 15:41, Joe Greco wrote:
> Someone suggested this be posted more visibly.
>
> ... JG
>
LOL
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
FWIW, I see no IPv6 options on my WRT610N HW Version 2. I thought maybe
there was a new firmware version which added IPv6 capability, but I'm
still running the latest. There's no IPv6 options on any menu,
including 6to4 options that I can see. May be available under DD-WRT or
something similar,
On 3/10/2010 16:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, only personally experienced pain is going to push a lot of these
>> sorts of people into ipv6. By pain, I mean things such as not being
>> able to deploy their new service (web site, email server, VPN box,
>> whatever) on the internet due to lack
On 3/10/2010 05:06, Andy Koch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:55, Jens Link wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong writes:
>>
>>
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
>>> acceptance<--- My dual-stacked network and I are here.
>>>
>> So am I. But most IT peop
On 3/5/2010 06:38, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> There is one of other catch with NAT64 and IPv6-only. It breaks
> communications with IPv4 literals. Now, you might says that IPv4
> literals in URLs are very seldom well ... have a look at how
> Akamai does a lot of their streaming. I just hope it do
On 1/26/2010 23:32, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> A minor data point to this, Linux looks to be implementing the
> subnet-router anycast address when IPv6 forwarding is enabled, as it's
> specifying Solicited-Node multicast address membership for the
> all zeros node address in it's MLD announcements when
On 1/25/2010 20:06, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> This from people who can probably do decimal to binary conversion
> and back again for IPv4 subnetting in their head and are proud of
> it. Surely IPv6 hex to binary and back again can be the new party
> trick? :-)
>
>
>
Hehe. Decimal -> binary in your
On 1/16/2010 07:01, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Cam Byrne wrote:
>
>> interested you can read the ietf draft. Assuming you have a ds-lite
>> cpe, you can park dual-stack hosts behind it. But, it does not "just
>
> If your hosts are dual-stacked, why would you need a ds-lite cpe
On 1/15/2010 23:45, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
>
>> Sorry for late response here...
>>
>> On 1/14/2010 15:20, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Jim Burwell >> <mailto:j...@jsbc.cc&
Sorry for late response here...
On 1/14/2010 15:20, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2010 11:10, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> My question to the community is: assuming a n
On 1/14/2010 11:10, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Folks,
>
> My question to the community is: assuming a network based IPv6 to IP4
> translator is in place (like NAT64 / DNS64), are IPv6-only Internet
> services viable as a product today? In particular, would it be
> appropriate for a 3G /smartphone or
On 1/6/2010 01:23, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
>
>> The closest I can come to a solution is to set a random password and flash
>> it using a front-panel LED using morse.
>>
> heh
>
> No password at all, operator prompted at the console dur
On 12/23/2009 13:03, Mike Leber wrote:
>
> Marty Anstey wrote:
>> Just wondering if anyone has had any experience with IPv6 training
>> courses.
>>
>> A quick search turns up a few results on the subject, but it would be
>> handy to hear if anyone has any firsthand experiences or
>> recommendations
39 matches
Mail list logo
