On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 02:17:59 -0500, Hank Nussbacher
wrote:
so to clarify I am interested only in bare-metal or whitebox swicthes
and freeware, open source software.
It's my understanding that there simply is no such thing. Because none of
the HARDWARE has open source code. Sure, anyone can
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we
should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would
multiply it by roughly 4 billion.
I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want.
The
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:15:45 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg
wrote:
On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
If that's the case, it will be because there were few restrictions
placed upon that address space.
And if some genius comes up with something that burns through all the
IPv6 addres
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:50:54 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg
wrote:
IPv6 prefixes are not databases. Coding this sort of thing into your
address space is silly.
And a 2^64 LAN, or ptp link, isn't? People have been doing this for
decades. They did it before NAT! NAT just made it that much easier.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:35:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for
a 64-bit total
address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit
subnets a no-brainer.
Incorrect. The original 128 address space was split 80+4
On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 15:52:40 -0400, Rod Beck
wrote:
I don't think there is virtually any aerial in Europe. So given the cost
difference why is virtually all fiber buried on this side of the
Atlantic?
Aerial is simple and fast... pull the cable through a stringer, move to
the next pole an
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:21:19 -0500, wrote:
We negotiate a contract with terms favorable to you. You sign it (or
more correctly, sign the SHA-1 hash of the document).
...
When you can do that in the timespan of weeks or days, get back to me.
Today, it takes years to calculate a collision,
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:03:34 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
More seriously: The attack (or at least as much as we can glean from the
blog post) cannot find a collision (file with same hash) from an
arbitrary file. The attack creates two files which have the same hash,
which is scary, but
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:05:30 -0400, Tim Jackson
wrote:
"As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has made
this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics pricing
competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan specials" that you
see floating around. I
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:47:18 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
NAT may not be security, yet it's the only thing securing billions of
people.
Nope… NAT Can’t be done without stateful inspection.
Negative.
- 1:1 NAT (inside address A == outside address B) requires no state of any
kind.
- Connectio
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:57:08 -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
zero interoperability, and no viable migration paths, it's a Forklift
Upgrade(tm).
You say that with such confidence! Doesn't make it true.
https://archive.psg.com/120206.nanog-v4-life-extension.pdf
randy, who works for the first isp to
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 21:41:05 -0400, Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
Then he reads on NANOG that since he has IPv6
he can just connect to the camera with that.
...
Only to find the built-in stateful firewall blocks unsolicited inbound
connections. Now he has to figure out how to manipulate ACLs. Or
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:17:37 -0400, Mark Andrews wrote:
The average consumer wants a "internet connection".
And sadly, they haven't a clue what that means. They plug the thing into
the other thing, and they can click on things in their web browser.
They're why we have boxes with color code
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:32:24 -0400, Adam Rothschild
wrote:
How can we, as a community, help move the needle
on v6 deployment on broadband networks, in cases where competitive
forces and market pressure don't exist?
You left out "consumer demand". And I would add consumer knowledge as well
-
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 17:24:48 -0400, Matthew Huff wrote:
What does https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip-demo show for your IPv6
prefix? If it is incorrect, try
https://support.maxmind.com/geoip-data-correction-request/
HAH. Funny... 39.76,-98.5 for every HE address I enter. And it's not like
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 19:41:14 -0400, Mark Andrews wrote:
What lie? Truly who is lying here. Not the end user. Not HE. There is
no requirement to report physical location.
The general lie that is IP Geolocation. HE only has what I tell them (100%
unverified), and what MaxMind (et.al.) tell
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 15:44:14 -0400, wrote:
And if Netflix can't be bothered to consult rwhois
for the ownership (which could be used for other use cases as well), they
certainly aren't going to do *new* code as a one-off.
Said by someone who's never written (r)whois parsers. There's no standar
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:08:13 -0400, John Peach
wrote:
The whois information on the HE IPv6 address, does give the location.
At least, it does on mine.
It lists the location of the user's registration -- which could very well
be a lie as they do nothing at all to verify it. AND that has zero
On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 19:35:27 -0400, Mark Andrews wrote:
It is a attack on HE. HE also provides stable user -> address
mappings so you can do fine grained geo location based on HE IPv6
addresses.
They may be "fine grained", but they are still lies. One's tunnel can be
terminated from *anywhe
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 17:11:57 -0400, Todd Crane
wrote:
... Curious as to what they use it for if not Web, MX, or DNS.
Same thing as Earthlink, apparently. (answer: nothing. at. all.)
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 23:47:59 -0400, Paul Ferguson
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
There is an epic lesson here. I'm just not sure what it is. :-)
- - ferg
https://youtu.be/SlA9hmrC8DU?t=2m25s
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel wrote:
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named,
individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007.
It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a
decade ago didn't build the in
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:55:11 -0400, Chris Boyd
wrote:
Interesting article.
http://fusion.net/story/287592/internet-mapping-glitch-kansas-farm/
...
"Until you reached out to us, we were unaware that there were issues..."
Bull! I can dig up dozens (if not hundreds) of emails from coworkers an
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:03:02 -0400, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
If that were the case, they'd be seeing the same via IPv4. And
apparently,
they aren't.
Nope. If you have both A and IP addresses in DNS responses and have
both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, IPv6 will be preferred, with even a bit
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:09:04 -0400, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
If your users are seeing captchas, one or a few or them are likely to be
infected to the point of generating too much requests to Google.
If that were the case, they'd be seeing the same via IPv4. And apparently,
they aren't.
This also po
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have
zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At
least not the big ones.)
Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't b
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes
wrote:
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view
of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is
paying them for every prefix they accept.
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:42:45 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted,
instead of the new content, you get a video explaining the need to get a
better internet connection and that the content you want will be
available to the legacy inter
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:21:14 -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number.
And it's not "native". A great many (myself included) have IPv6 *by
choice* through various tunnels. And AT&T (Uverse) isn't "native" either
-- it's a 6rd tunnel their gateways have been prog
Hey!
New message, please read <http://floridadentalanesthesia.com/steps.php?l>
Ricky Beam
Hey!
New message, please read <http://safelysurfing.com/but.php?443>
Ricky Beam
Hey!
New message, please read <http://bio-oil-reviews.com/other.php?j>
Ricky Beam
On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:45:38 -0400, Mike
wrote:
WE DO NOT HAVE realistic choices.
Or, apparently, realistic expectations.
You, do, indeed, deserve public shaming for your complete lack of
willingness to support IPv6. Your customers have no "realistic choices"
either. How many other ISPs
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:35:44 -0400, Michael Douglas
wrote:
Does anyone have a sample of a backdoored IOS image?
The IOS image isn't what gets modified. ROMMON is altered to patch IOS
after decompression before passing control to it. I don't know WTF
they're going on and on about "file si
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:28:34 -0400, Jaren Angerbauer
wrote:
I work for Proofpoint -- we acquired SORBS back in 2011.
Hint: The Internet has a LONG memory.
The liberal and numerous dropping of "for free" makes me laugh. "You" knew
the tainted nature of what you were buying. Nobody, to this
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:02:06 -0400, Keith Stokes
wrote:
1. Is it really accurate that the customer’s address is tied to the
modem/router?
To the 802.1x identity of the device, yes. That's the unit serial number,
which (partial) contains the MAC.
2. For my curiosity, is this done through
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:13:48 -0400, Curtis Maurand
wrote:
At least in Maine where I am, TWC does allow you to bring your own modem
as long as it's DOCSIS 3 compliant and there's lots of those from
motorola, netgear and others. You're not stuck with the Ubee.
You are ignoring the "BUSINESS
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 06:45:43 -0400, Seth Mos wrote:
For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's
not clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is
listed on the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the
firmware isn't ready yet is not clear
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from
the UBee has to do dhcpv6?)
The Ubee "router" is in bridge mode. Customers have ZERO access to the
thing, even when it is running in routed mode. So I have no i
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:32:19 -0400, Mark Andrews wrote:
You can blame the religious zealots that insisted that everything
DHCP does has to also be done via RA's.
I blame the anti-DHCP crowd for a lot of things. RAs are just dumb.
There's a reason IPv4 can do *everything* through DHCP -- hell
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:35:07 -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
So your point is that those who claimed it would not help managed to
make it so?
Would it have really hurt to remove experimental status and replace it
with use at your own risk status? Even now?
No. The point is it's been wired into e
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:34:13 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
That covers multicast and RFC-1918. Are there any other IPv4
segmentations that you can think of?
...
Given that we came up with 3 total segmentations in IPv4 over the course
#1-3,#4 RFC-1918 is 3 "segments" and we recently added a 4th
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:23:52 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking”
when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but
lots of people have said “what the F*** were they thinking when they
limited it to 640k.”
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:20:11 -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
Business Class DOCSIS customers get a prefix automatically (unless you
provide your own gateway and DHCPv6 isn¹t enabled).
I looked last night at the office in Cary, NC. NO RAs are seen on the link
coming from the Ubee (bridged) providing
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant
address space.
There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with
stupid allocation policies.
True. However, are you making the argument that any
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:32:33 -0400, Ca By wrote:
Yes, move your business to TWC. TWC has a proven v6 deployment and is
actively engaged in the community, as where vz Fios is not.
Yes, because TWC-BC's IPv6 support is stellar. Sorry, I misspelled
"non-existent".
Their "DIA" (metro-e) stuff
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:14:16 -0400, John Curran wrote:
If there are “holes” in the methodology, then they are quite consistent
holes...
They are mere statistics. They say only what they say without any measured
margin of error.
For Google, their numbers are collected via javascript embedd
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:06:03 -0400, Mel Beckman wrote:
It's like going to a Starbucks as a homeless person with just pocket
change, and ordering the cheapest coffee on the menu, and being told
"Oh, that's for off-planet visitors only. It says so on our website
under "Terms and Conditions."
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:15:57 -0400, Karl Auer wrote:
Actually I was mentioning thousands.
Dozens, millions, whatever. Pick something and get on with it already.
What you personally don't foresee is pretty much irrelevant to what will
actually happen...
And planning for a future that doesn'
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:48:06 -0400, John Curran wrote:
Both techniques indicate more than 20% of the US Internet users are
connecting via IPv6.
Interesting method that's full of holes (and they know it), but it's data
nonetheless.
Globally, it's still ~4.5%. Within my own pool of provider
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:08:56 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
the reality I’m trying to point out is that application developers make
assumptions based
on the commonly deployed environment that they expect in the world.
Partially. It's also a matter of the software guys not having any clue
what-s
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:23:29 -0400, Naslund, Steve
wrote:
That would be Tivo's fault wouldn't it.
Partially, even mostly... it's based on Bonjour. That's why the shit
doesn't work "over the internet".
(It's just http/https, so it will, in fact, work, but their apps aren't
designed to wo
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:05:00 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
Look again… IPv6 is already more than 20% of Google traffic in the US.
20% of *1* site's traffic does not equal 20% DEPLOYMENT. (read: 20% of
internet DEVICES (CPE) connected by IPv6)
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 16:00:35 -0400, Naslund, Steve
wrote:
Now, if we assume that VLAN based security is weak and that most homes
do not generate enough broadcast traffic to be an issue, what exactly is
the reason that a residential customer needs a lot of VLANs? Answer,
they probably don'
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:08:53 -0400, Marco Teixeira
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Harald Koch wrote:
The "common man" is becoming much more sophisticated in their networking
requirements, and they need this stuff to just work. Please don't place
artificially small limits just because
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 07:27:16 -0400, Jared Mauch
wrote:
Really just people not patching their software after warnings more than
six months ago:
A lot goes into "updates". Not the least of which is *knowing* about the
issue. Then getting the patched code, then lab testing, then regulatory
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:49:17 -0400, Karl Auer wrote:
You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future.
What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE.
What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to
them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:32:35 -0400, Mel Beckman wrote:
You have to draw the limbs somewhere. Why not 512 bits? 1024? The IETF
engineers that thought about this long and hard and discussed the topic
we've just had, and a thousands of other topics, decided on 128. I'm
inclined to give them th
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:13:24 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:19:52 -0500, Mike Hammett said:
/56 even seems a bit excessive for a residential user, but *shrugs*
It goes pretty quick when each WNDR3800 running CeroWRT will chew through
4 bits worth of subnets just by powering on, and even
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 21:19:52 -0400, Mike Hammett wrote:
/56 even seems a bit excessive for a residential user, but *shrugs*
That's why some hand out a /60, but only if you ask for it. Otherwise, you
get only a single /64.
Of course, HE will give you a /48 at the click of the mouse.
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:12:47 -0400, Jeff Walter wrote:
he basically told me RWHOIS was dead
It is most certainly NOT dead. It is, and always has been, a very small
userbase. SWIP has always been a pain in the ass. Modern web-ized methods
are more acceptable, but still an ugly mess. But, th
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:28:13 -0400, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
There are still isolated pockets of devices out there speaking IPX,
DECnet, Appletalk, etc
Indeed. I'm one of them. (rarely) ... IPX managed print server. It speaks
IP, but cannot be managed by IP. I'd throw it away, but it func
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:58:24 -0400, Alexander Maassen
wrote:
Before that will happen. Isp's will first try cgnat and the alikes.
They already are. And, depending on the network, have for eons. Have you
checked the IP used by your cellphone? (the last few times I bothered to
look... somewh
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:23:27 -0400, Lyndon Nerenberg
wrote:
IPX ruled the roost, very popularly, for a little while. How long did
it take to die?
It isn't dead yet, but it's certainly on the endangered list.
Why did it die?
The death of Novell NetWare (and their transitioned to IP) kill
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:35:34 -0400, Rafael Possamai
wrote:
How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4? Or is
it even going to happen at all?
Things like IPX and token-ring are still around. IPv4 isn't going anywhere
for decades. (if ever) Mostly because there are thin
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:58:27 -0400, William Astle wrote:
Like certain data centers attached to AS701 in Canada.
Or their end customers all over the world. Of course, they're no different
than most other carriers. At the time we moved into this office, TWC
wasn't available [TWCBC] (but they
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:17:53 -0400, Ca By wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02
Proposed and denied. Please stop this line and spend your efforts on ipv6
By APNIC. Cisco did, too, btw. And they weren't first, either. Nor is this
going to be the last time someone sugges
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:38:32 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's held in
reserve by IETF. As much as I enjoy a good ARIN bashing, they and John
Curran are quite faultless here.
Quote-unquote, as in they didn't even bother *even proposing* to use
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:07:25 -0400, Luan Nguyen
wrote:
Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it?
Just for NATTING on Cisco gears...
As you've already figured out, Class E space is still restricted on Cisco
gear.
I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links to reasons why Class
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:09:16 -0400, Steve Mikulasik
wrote:
Is this one of those requirements that gets ignored? I have seen plenty
of 40Mhz SSIDs polluting spectrum in areas with lots of overlapping APs.
It's not supposed to be. But what is (originally) submitted for testing
and what you g
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:17:52 -0400, Colton Conor
wrote:
So assuming you live in a decent sized house/lot, should you really care
about squatting all over the entire band? I mean sure I can see my
neighbors wifi signals...
*DING* There's your problem. It doesn't matter if you can link and pass
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:42:07 -0400, Laszlo Hanyecz
wrote:
It looks to me like Lorenzo wants the same thing as most everyone here,
It doesn't look like that from my chair. He doesn't want to implement
DHCPv6 (and has REFUSED to do so for YEARS now) because he cannot find
solutions for ever
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:58:06 -0400, Lorenzo Colitti
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Jon Bane wrote:
DHCPv6 - RFC3315 - Category: Standards Track
464XLAT - RFC6877 - Category: Informational
Ooo, that's fun, can I play too?
We aren't asking you to support BGP, or SNMP. We're DEMAND
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:52:44 -0500, Martin Hannigan
wrote:
Remember the Ascend MAX TNT and the sideways left-right airflow?
...
Indeed I do. I see you've heard the story of PSINet melting components as
well.
We used USR(3Com) TotalControl hardware: vertical venting. The chimney
effect w
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:41:45 -0500, Corey Touchet
wrote:
We'll I would for one be very interested if the 8 ARP packets a second
count against the caps.
Depends on where and what counters they probe. I would assume they look at
"unicast" fields, so it wouldn't counted. (of course, *I* wou
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:33:03 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
In short, the only thing really truly wrong with this scenario is that
Comcast is using equipment that the subscriber should have exclusive
control over (they are renting it, so while Comcast retains ownership,
they have relinquished m
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:46:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason
wrote:
By this logic they are all dumping gas on the fire as well.
I'm not denying it's a big fire. But adding additional 2.4Ghz radios Is.
Not. Helping. Because "everything else is" is not a reason for one of the
largest companies in t
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:32:06 -0500, Spencer Gaw wrote:
Your reading comprehension could use some work:
That was post *AFTER* my comment. And it doesn't say the xfinity service
is running on its own dedicated radio, just that it has more than one
radio in it -- which it would having ac (5gh
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:08:51 -0500, Livingood, Jason
wrote:
... Behavioral economics would suggest that opt-in rates are almost
always lower than opt-out.
There's two ways to look at it:
a) Everyone knows about it. Few would bother to opt-in, many would bother
to opt-out.
b) Few ("no one")
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:26:37 -0500, Josh Luthman
wrote:
Not correct. If it's on one radio it's using the same RF space it was
before, just with a virtual SSID. Just like the atheros or Ruckus stuff
it's the same RF space with an additional BSSID bridged to a different
software bridge or ps
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason
wrote:
...But 2.4GHz was a bit of a mess before we came along with this service.
So, knowing the house is on fire, you bring a can of gas to put it out.
You aren't f'ing helping.
Of course, since Comcast didn't spring for separate radi
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:43:09 -0500, Joe wrote:
Generally speaking its best you do what your good at and this is not it.
Exposing there is a window open to a gov agency is not hacking, trust
me. I would say go back to fathering children and once you have a few
more years under your belt feel
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:31:02 -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
Perhaps you don't remember the days when an fsck was
basically mandatory and could take 15-20 minutes on a large disk.
Journaling has all but done away with fsck. You'd have to go *way* back to
have systems that ran a full fsck on every
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:29:44 -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
The thing that I don't understand about systemd is how it managed to get
*EVERY SINGLE DISTRIBUTION'S RELEASE MANAGER* on board...
It's spelled "Red Hat". Add in GNOME and debian (et. al.) is backed into a
corner. Red Hat is soo f'ing
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:44:57 -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
systemd is insanity. one would have hoped that deb and others would
know better. sigh.
This is exactly the type of shit one gets by letting non-technical people
make technical decisions.
systemd should never have even been on the tabl
On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:16:22 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote:
Side question for those smarter than I. How does WPA encryption play
into this? Would a client associated to a WPA2 AP take a non-encrypted
deauth appearing from the same BSSID?
It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is not encrypted and
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:21:12 -0400, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
How much IPv6 space would you propose an ISP provisions for each of its
residential users?
A single /64 would, currently, be sufficient for 99% of households. The
link can be /128, /127, /64, whatever -- between ISP and CPE does
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:35:55 -0400, John Curran wrote:
Any suggestions on how ARIN should reach those CIO's in the meantime?
Refuse additional IPv4 assignments to those who have not deployed IPv6.
And not just been assigned a v6 block, but actually running IPv6 to every
customer who asks
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:17:29 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
Let's figure each person needs an end site for their place of business,
their two cars, their home, their vacation home, and just for good
measure, let's double that to be ultra-conservative. That's 10 end-sites
per person or 101 billio
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:07:16 -0400, Laszlo Hanyecz
wrote:
One would hope that with IPv6 this would change, but the attitude of
looking down on end subscribers has been around forever.
And for damn good reasons (read: foolish and easy to trick into becoming a
spam source.) Granted, "enterpr
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 03:14:59 -0500, Song Li
wrote:
I have one simple question: as for AS relationship, should customer tell
its provider the AS# of its own customers, or the provider have the
right to require its customers to do that?
(Having been on both ends of this...)
If you want me t
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 14:03:21 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
A router, yes. THE router, not unless the network is very stupidly put
together.
Like every win7 and win8 machine on the planet? (IPv6 is installed and
enabled by default. Few places have IPv6 enabled on their LAN, so a single
RA wou
On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:52:25 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not entirely true, actually… If you’re willing to work hard enough at
it, most hosts can be “encouraged” to renew early.
Short of commandline access, no there isn't. (crashing or otherwise
triggering a reboot, isn't a "renew"; that's a
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:16:57 -0500, Doug Barton
wrote:
On 12/20/2013 05:25 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
So there's an interesting question. You suggest there's a disagreement
between enterprise network operators and protocol designers. Who should
change?
Rather obviously the protocol designers,
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:03:59 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not counting MAC users, because they cannot do DHCPv6 without 3rd party
software.
My Macs seem to do DHCPv6 just fine here without third party software,
so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
I've heard many reports of apple not
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:02:39 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not really... First of all, domain or other windows authentication could
be used to validate the request.
Most home networks aren't part of a domain. (unless they're using versions
beyond "home", they can't)
Second, if it's site-scope
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:56:13 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
- A /56 is horribly wrong and the world will end if we don't fix it NOW.
I'm reminded of the Comcast trial deployments. Wasn't their conclusion
(with a collective thumbs up from the networking world) to go with /56?
Yet, even they a
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:27:36 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s)
can be smaller than /64. I don't want to give them any ideas, but
Uverse could use their monopoly on routers to make your lan a DHCP only
/120.
I think if they di
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:18:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
You don't, but it's easy enough for Windows to do discovery and/or
negotiation for firewall holes with multicast and avoid making
...
Actually, your process still makes a very dangerous assumption... you have
to assume the address passe
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:07:40 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Whenever they split or combine a CMTS or head-end...
Shouldn't matter unless they're moving things across DHCP servers. (which
is likely from what I've heard about TWC, and seen from my own modems. In
fact, the addresses in my office c
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
