Thank you, Tim.
I have often suggested that clear business purposes should drive implementation
of technology. Every cogent analysis of IPv6 shows that there are enough
addresses that we need not worry about running out of addresses for many
decades. Even swarms of devices should not seriously
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 29, 2021, at 14:06 , Joe Maimon wrote:
t...@pelican.org wrote:
On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said:
The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
gover
> On Jul 29, 2021, at 14:14 , Daniel Corbe wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 29, 2021, at 16:06, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> t...@pelican.org wrote:
>>> On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said:
>>>
The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
> On Jul 29, 2021, at 14:06 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> t...@pelican.org wrote:
>> On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said:
>>
>>> The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
>>> consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
>>> go
> On Jul 29, 2021, at 22:23, Frank Habicht wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 30/07/2021 07:58, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:> ...
>> Consider this… I discussed this topic at length with JJB (COMCAST at
>> the time) and pushed hard on why they don’t give /48s to their
>> residential customers. His answer
Hi,
On 30/07/2021 07:58, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:> ...
> Consider this… I discussed this topic at length with JJB (COMCAST at
> the time) and pushed hard on why they don’t give /48s to their
> residential customers. His answer was that if they did so, they would
> need to get a /12 from their
> On Jul 19, 2021, at 06:04 , Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>> What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack
>> and providing some combination of these services for years. They
>> already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should thei
> On Jul 29, 2021, at 16:06, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> t...@pelican.org wrote:
>> On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said:
>>
>>> The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
>>> consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
>>> gov
t...@pelican.org wrote:
On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said:
The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with
/96, /1
On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 17:41, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 7/20/21 10:01 AM, Michael Loftis wrote:
> > My apologies to everyone using an HTML mail client.
>
> No reason to apologize for that. If someone is careless enough to use an HTML
> client on a mailing list, they deserve what they get :-D
Enab
On 7/20/21 10:01 AM, Michael Loftis wrote:
> My apologies to everyone using an HTML mail client.
No reason to apologize for that. If someone is careless enough to use an HTML
client on a mailing list, they deserve what they get :-D
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 7:48 AM Michael Loftis wrote:
>
> (Reply in-line)
My apologies to everyone using an HTML mail client. Don't try in-line
replies with Google's iOS app. *sigh* Really, it's not a blank
reply...
The gist of my reply was. Don't complain about DNS services when
you're not
(Reply in-line)
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 06:11 Stephen Satchell wrote:
> First, I know this isn't the right place to propose this; need a pointer
> to where to propose an outlandish idea.
>
> PROBLEM: IPv6 support is still in its birthing pangs. I see a problem
> that limits deployment of IPv6
It is theoretically possible to completely automate reverse DNS provisioning.
It just requires will to do it. Enterprises have been doing automated reverse
DNS provisioning for decades now using DNS UPDATE requests from DHCP servers
using TSIG or GSS-TSIG.
This method does it as part of prefix de
On 7/19/21 8:09 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> First, I know this isn't the right place to propose this; need a pointer
> to where to propose an outlandish idea.
> What would the domain names look like? Let's take my current IP/IPv6
> assignments from AT&T:
>
>2600:1700:79b0:ddc0::/64
>
I'm with Tim on this. I'm unsure if you've kept a mental note of just how big
IPv6 is, but it's 340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 IP
addresses in IPv6
IPv4 on the other hand has 4,294,967,296 total IP addresses.
I understand the issuance and total use leading to exhausti
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:27:13 -0700,
Nathan Angelacos wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 08:51 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > Well, for SLAAC you need a /64
> >
> > this is not true
> >
> > randy
>
>
> That is cool! Can you point me to the correct RFC please?
>
from the war zone, draft-classl
On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 08:51 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Well, for SLAAC you need a /64
>
> this is not true
>
> randy
That is cool! Can you point me to the correct RFC please?
> Well, for SLAAC you need a /64
this is not true
randy
---
ra...@psg.com
`gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd ra...@psg.com`
signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery
On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said:
> The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
> consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
> governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with
> /96, /104 or even /112 alloca
Hello,
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 15:04, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
> consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
> governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with
> /96, /104 or even /112 al
On 7/19/21, 9:04 AM, "Stephen Satchell" wrote:
On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack
> and providing some combination of these services for years. They
> already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should their
> On Jul 19, 2021, at 9:04 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>> What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack
>> and providing some combination of these services for years. They
>> already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should the
On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote:
What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack
and providing some combination of these services for years. They
already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should their business
customers want them. Some even provide at least a /56 so c
What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack and
providing some combination of these services for years. They already provide
IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should their business customers want them. Some even
provide at least a /56 so customers can have multiple /64 subnets.
First, I know this isn't the right place to propose this; need a pointer
to where to propose an outlandish idea.
PROBLEM: IPv6 support is still in its birthing pangs. I see a problem
that limits deployment of IPv6 fully: reverse PTR records in the
".in6.arpa." zones.
(Now that I think abo
26 matches
Mail list logo
