On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz
wrote: > The Comcast business SMC gateway speaks RIP to make the
>routed /29 work.. in theory it could be put into bridge mode and you can do
>>the RIP yourself but they don't support that configuration (you'd need the
>>key to configure it succe
On Jun 22, 2014, at 20:41 , Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2014, at 3:32 AM, "Kalnozols, Andris" wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6/22/2014 7:41 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>>> Did they ever explain why? Did the SMC function as a router, and act as the
>>> customer side of a stub network that allowed that
>> -Original Message-
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kalnozols, Andris
>> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:29 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
>>
>>
>>
>> My experie
swer from another Comcast rep with more v6-fu
but I didn't pursue it.
Andris
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kalnozols, Andris
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:29 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv
-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kalnozols, Andris
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:29 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
My experience as a Comcast Business customer with a /29 IPv4 subnet was
that swapping out the SMC modem/router for an
ld respond. The platform needs to do some traffic inspection.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Darren Pilgrim
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 8:41 PM
To: trej...@gmail.com; Lee Howard
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
On 6/22/2014 7:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/2014 6:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Darren Pilgrim
>>> wrote:
For Comcast business services, the SMC box on my demarc panel isn't
IPv6 capable an
On 6/22/2014 7:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
On 6/22/2014 6:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
OTOH, you can supply your own Motorola Surfboard DOCSIS 3 modem and
it works just fine with Comcast Business.
Have you tried using that with a routed subnet?
Eyeballs works. =)
Frank
-Original Message-
From: George, Wes [mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:58 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: NANOG; Donley, Chris (Cable Labs)
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
On 6/21/14, 3:20 PM, "Frank Bulk" wrote:
&g
On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 6/22/2014 6:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Darren Pilgrim
>> wrote:
>>> For Comcast business services, the SMC box on my demarc panel isn't
>>> IPv6 capable and neither are any of Comcast's other business CPE.
>>
On 6/22/2014 6:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 22, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Darren Pilgrim
wrote:
For Comcast business services, the SMC box on my demarc panel isn't
IPv6 capable and neither are any of Comcast's other business CPE.
Not true. The Netgear CCB tried to install here just a couple of da
On Jun 22, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 6/18/2014 11:49 AM, TJ wrote:
>> Yeah, Verizon and VZW are not the same animal ... FiOS *needs* to get their
>> IPv6 house in order.
>> Anyone have any information on that front ...?
>
> For FiOS, the ONTs do transparent muckery at the IP
On 6/18/2014 11:49 AM, TJ wrote:
Yeah, Verizon and VZW are not the same animal ... FiOS *needs* to get their
IPv6 house in order.
Anyone have any information on that front ...?
For FiOS, the ONTs do transparent muckery at the IP level and aren't yet
capable of equivalent IPv6 muckery. Verizon
d-range consumer router that you think
> would meet our needs, please drop me a note off-list.
>
> Frank
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Gary Buhrmaster
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:41 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> C
On 6/21/14, 3:20 PM, "Frank Bulk" wrote:
>Donley said that Cablelabs moved to a new hosting provider that (at that
>time) did not support IPv6.
Www.cablelabs.com does have a , it's just that cablelabs.com doesn't.
Unfortunately all too common. We're also leaning on them to be more
complete
nanog.org] On Behalf Of Gary Buhrmaster
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:41 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
.
> Ideally, it would be nice if the UNH/IOL and/or CEA could come up with a
down again.
Fessler was chasing down www.att.net, but I've not received an update on
this (BCCing him this message).
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Lee Howard [mailto:l...@asgard.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:54 AM
To: Frank Bulk; 'Jared Mauch'
Cc: NANOG
Subject:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> On 6/19/14 4:30 PM, "Christopher Morrow" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
> >
> >which content providers (large-ish ones) are lagging still?
>
> https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/detailed.php?country=us
>
> [
M
>> To: li...@sadiqs.com
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org; NANOG
>> Subject: RE: Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion)
>>
>> Videotron (AS5769) is offering 6RD (RFC5969) to all residential customers,
>> if their gear supports it. (DHCP option
10:13 AM
> To: li...@sadiqs.com
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org; NANOG
> Subject: RE: Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion)
>
> Videotron (AS5769) is offering 6RD (RFC5969) to all residential customers, if
> their gear supports it. (DHCP option 212)
>
> (But our
On 6/19/14 11:13 PM, "Christopher Morrow" wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/14 4:30 PM, "Christopher Morrow"
>>wrote:
>>
>So, I was focusing on the end-user (Consumer) set because given enough
>migration there that should push more application folk in
des Réseaux
>Vidéotron
>
>"NANOG" a écrit sur 2014-06-18 20:16:01 :
>
>> De : Sadiq Saif
>> A : nanog@nanog.org,
>> Date : 2014-06-19 12:43
>> Objet : Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion)
>> Envoyé par : "NANOG"
is/or can be quite challenging for some net admins.
Thank You
-Original Message-
From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:14 AM
To: Edward Arthurs
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on I
>> So in my book, "some" v6 support is actually worse than "none"
That has been my experience. The eyeballs are not happy.
R's,
John
0 10:22:17 :
> De : Gabriel Blanchard
> A : "nanog@nanog.org" ,
> Date : 2014-06-20 10:24
> Objet : RE: Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion)
> Envoyé par : "NANOG"
>
> 6rd is in my opinion a band-aid solution, I don't see the po
NANOG" a écrit sur 2014-06-18 20:16:01 :
> De : Sadiq Saif
> A : nanog@nanog.org,
> Date : 2014-06-19 12:43
> Objet : Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion) Envoyé
> par : "NANOG"
>
> On 6/18/2014 14:25, Lee Howard wrote:
> > Canada i
ur 2014-06-18 20:16:01 :
> De : Sadiq Saif
> A : nanog@nanog.org,
> Date : 2014-06-19 12:43
> Objet : Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion)
> Envoyé par : "NANOG"
>
> On 6/18/2014 14:25, Lee Howard wrote:
> > Canada is way behind, just 0.4%
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Kaufman"
> My Apple TV appears to use IPv6, but since there's no UI for it (last
> I checked) I had to disable SLAAC on that subnet to keep it from
> trying to use my slow connection.
>
> So in my book, "some" v6 support is actually worse than "none"
NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Sadiq Saif
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:16 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion)
On 6/18/2014 14:25, Lee Howard wrote:
> Canada is way behind, just 0.4% deployment.
Any Canadian ISP folk
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, jim deleskie wrote:
Those all sounds like legit business questions.
Yup. On the otherhand at the other end of the customer spectrum:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/it-ti/ipv6/ipv6tb-eng.asp
-jim
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:45 PM, William F. Maton Sotomayor
wrote:
Well my suggestion was less in the realm of imposing changes in policy
and more in the realm of providing resources (even if just as a nexus)
and fora to help promote IPv6 adoption, brainstorm the problem.
There is a cross-disciplinary aspect to this, it's not only a network
engineering and opera
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> On 6/19/14 4:30 PM, "Christopher Morrow" wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> How does IPv6 to end users make IPv4 unnecessary for growth, if
>>> enterprises and content providers haven't deployed IPv6?
>>
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
.
> Ideally, it would be nice if the UNH/IOL and/or CEA could come up with a
> meaningful definition of IPv6 support and a logo to go with it that we could
> tell consumers to look for on the box. Ideally, this would be a set of
> standar
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 06:46:11PM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 6/19/2014 5:14 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > and cut the
> >tea party fanaticism.
>
> What might this mean in this context (IP) and environment (NANOG)?
Death to the lemon we
On 6/19/2014 5:14 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
and cut the
tea party fanaticism.
What might this mean in this context (IP) and environment (NANOG)?
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
It depends on how you define Nexus.
Currently the way number resource policy works is that global policy requires
an identical policy
be put through the policy development process in each of the 5 regional
internet registries and
adopted by all 5. It is then sent to the ASO AC (an elected body
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 15:55 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> With a small amount of conceptual knowledge, the differences between
> IPv4 and IPv6 become very very small.
True story: At a previous employer, a local admin had pushed his network
over 250-odd PCs and wanted more addresses. So we extended h
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you read the rest of my post, you would realize that I wasn't arguing
to give out addresses to every person and their dog, but instead arguing
that trying to shift bits to the right would be costly and pointless
because there are more than enough bits
On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:27 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> 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-con
On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:53 , Edward Arthurs wrote:
> Thank You for responding.
> If mid to small companies have equipment made in the last 7 years, they will
> not need to replace equipment.
> Most net admins at the mid to small companies have no idea about IPV6.
> Cost is a major consideration
On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:51 , Barry Shein wrote:
>
> On June 19, 2014 at 04:01 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>> ICANN != a good sampling of number resource issues or concerns.
>>
>> As you noticed, the whole mess with domain names and their IP issues
>> is the monetary tail that wags the
On Jun 19, 2014, at 07:02 , Lee Howard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I support a recommendation to consumer retailers to start requiring IPv6
>>> support in the stuff that they sell, but unfortunately I don¹t have very
>>> good data on how large of a request that actually is.
>>
>> In my experience, r
> Any suggestions on how ARIN should reach those CIO's in the meantime?
> (so as to reduce the number who experience such surprise) We've done
> some attempts at outreach to that community, and have advice from PR
> firms, etc., but I'm interested in a more "real world" perspective on
> getting th
On 6/19/14 5:02 PM, "John Curran" wrote:
>On Jun 19, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
>> 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 dep
On 6/19/14 4:30 PM, "Christopher Morrow" wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>>
>> How does IPv6 to end users make IPv4 unnecessary for growth, if
>> enterprises and content providers haven't deployed IPv6?
>
>content folk are mostly getting v6 done already, right? (minu
On Jun 19, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> 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,
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, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
> How does IPv6 to end users make IPv4 unnecessary for growth, if
> enterprises and content providers haven't deployed IPv6?
content folk are mostly getting v6 done already, right? (minus AWS/etc
which are on-plan to deploy as near as I can tel
On 6/19/14 2:50 PM, "Christopher Morrow" wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edward Arthurs
> wrote:
>> You are correct, but this is the tip of the iceberg as other
>>configurations will need to come into play as pointed out by several
>>people on this thread.
>> This learning curve is not
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 Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:59:34 -0400, Barry Shein said:
> But I thought ICANN was supposed to be the new and future nexus for
> all things internet governance?
Oh, come on Barry. This isn't your first rodeo, and I know you're *way*
too smart to believe that press releases align with reality...
pg
But I thought ICANN was supposed to be the new and future nexus for
all things internet governance?
On June 19, 2014 at 13:57 morrowc.li...@gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> >
> > Really. You're really completely discounting ICANN in
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Ricky Beam wrote:
Can we stop with the lame "every person, and their dog!" numbering plans. The
same MISTAKE has been repeated so many times in recent history you'd think
people would know better. It's the exact same wrong-think that was applied to
the 32bit IPv4 addressin
That is a good question and I wish I had a good answer. I'm trying to beat
the drums where I work for IPv6 and it is tough because nobody has thought
about it and in our situation I actuallly have a good case. We develop
mobile apps and with the amount of IPv6 VZW and T-mobile are doing having
at
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edward Arthurs
wrote:
> You are correct, but this is the tip of the iceberg as other configurations
> will need to come into play as pointed out by several people on this thread.
> This learning curve is not impossible, if the net admin really applies
> his/her s
On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Brian Hartsfield wrote:
> ... While it isn't the end of the world when ARIN runs out, it is still
> significant
> and I personally think that moment is going to be what starts to spur more
> CIOs to
> start asking questions about IPv6 and if their organization is
: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:22 AM
To: Edward Arthurs
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Edward Arthurs
wrote:
> The differe
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 Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Edward Arthurs
wrote:
> The difference between IPV4 and IPV6 for someone not familiar is huge,
> 1. There is a totally new format dotted decimal to colon.
> 2. The 32 bit to 128 bit is/or can be quite challenging for some net admins.
these seem like the smallest o
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>>> 2. The network Admins at the above mentioned companies need to learn
>>> IPV6,
>>> most will want there company to pay the bill for this.
>>
>>
>> for a large majority of the use case
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:53:20 -0700, "Edward Arthurs" said:
> If mid to small companies have equipment made in the last 7 years, they will
> not need to replace equipment.
> Most net admins at the mid to small companies have no idea about IPV6.
In other words, upgrading or replacing liveware is mo
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:51:06 -0400, Barry Shein said:
> Really. You're really completely discounting ICANN in having any
> leadership or participative role in the IPv4/IPv6 transition?
Haven't seen any yet. Probably because you can't make money with IP addresses
like you can with TLD's
(Now
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> Really. You're really completely discounting ICANN in having any
> leadership or participative role in the IPv4/IPv6 transition?
>
What leadership position have you seen them take ASIDE from marketing
(in the last 2-3 yrs, but most of that h
[mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:14 AM
To: Edward Arthurs
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Edward Arthurs
wrote:
> There are several obstacles to overcome, IMHO 1.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Christopher Morrow wrote:
2. The network Admins at the above mentioned companies need to learn IPV6,
most will want there company to pay the bill for this.
for a large majority of the use cases it's just "configure that other
family on the interface" and done.
In the sim
On June 19, 2014 at 04:01 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
> ICANN != a good sampling of number resource issues or concerns.
>
> As you noticed, the whole mess with domain names and their IP issues
> is the monetary tail that wags the ICANN dog. ICANN barely pays attention
> to number re
Those all sounds like legit business questions.
-jim
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:45 PM, William F. Maton Sotomayor <
wma...@ottix.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Sadiq Saif wrote:
>
> On 6/18/2014 14:25, Lee Howard wrote:
>>
>>> Canada is way behind, just 0.4% deployment.
>>>
>>
>> Any Canadi
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Sadiq Saif wrote:
On 6/18/2014 14:25, Lee Howard wrote:
Canada is way behind, just 0.4% deployment.
Any Canadian ISP folk in here want to shine a light on this dearth of
residential IPv6 connectivity?
Is there any progress being made on this front?
Teksavvy does it (tu
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Brian Hartsfield wrote:
I am going to be real interested to see how the media handles the situation
when ARIN runs out of IPv4 addresses. I could really see some big doom
and gloom stories hit some of the mainstream media when that occurs. While
it isn't the end of the wo
From: Brian Hartsfield
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:27 AM
To: Lee Howard
Cc: Owen DeLong , Wesley George
, "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
> For consumers I think I would phrase it more as the "next generation internet"
> and
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Edward Arthurs
wrote:
> There are several obstacles to overcome, IMHO
> 1. The companies at the mid size and smaller levels have to invest in newer
> equipment that handles IPV6.
if they have gear made in the last 7yrs it's likely already got the
right bits for v6
>Short of consumer education, how do you expect to resolve the issue where
>$CONSUMER walks into $BIG_BOX_CE_STORE
>and says "I need a router, what's the cheapest one you have?"
By making the answer "the cheapest is this FooTronics, but you're
better off with this MegaBar. The FooTronics doesn't
For consumers I think I would phrase it more as the "next generation
internet" and you need IPv6 in order to be able to connect to it and that
eventually some sites you want to connect to may not be accessible over the
current internet. Something like that.
I am going to be real interested to see
: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
In message , Owen DeLong
write
s:
> >=20
> > However, I also don't think consumer education is the answer:
> > http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/consumeraction.htm
> > Summary: Until it is perfectly clear w
On 6/18/2014 14:25, Lee Howard wrote:
> Canada is way behind, just 0.4% deployment.
Any Canadian ISP folk in here want to shine a light on this dearth of
residential IPv6 connectivity?
Is there any progress being made on this front?
--
Sadiq Saif
To: Frank Bulk; 'Jared Mauch'
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
On 6/17/14 11:43 PM, "Frank Bulk" wrote:
>These sites used to be dual-stacked:
>www.cablelabs.com (over 180 days ago via ipv6.cablelabs.com)
>www.att.net (over 44 days ago)
>www.char
On 6/18/14 7:26 PM, "Karl Auer" wrote:
>On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 19:02 -0400, George, Wes wrote:
>> Similarly, Belkin¹s home routers appear to support IPv6, but that
>>doesn¹t
>> appear in the specs or features list on their site when I just checked
>>it.
>
>There's also an issue of what "IPv6 sup
>
>
>
>> I support a recommendation to consumer retailers to start requiring IPv6
>> support in the stuff that they sell, but unfortunately I don¹t have very
>> good data on how large of a request that actually is.
>
>In my experience, retailers will sell whatever flies off the shelves
>without
>re
On 6/17/14 11:43 PM, "Frank Bulk" wrote:
>These sites used to be dual-stacked:
>www.cablelabs.com (over 180 days ago via ipv6.cablelabs.com)
>www.att.net (over 44 days ago)
>www.charter.com (over 151 days)
>www.globalcrossing.com (over 802 days)
>www.timewarnercable.com (over 593 days)
Check t
On Jun 18, 2014, at 4:02 PM, George, Wes wrote:
>
> On 6/18/14, 4:09 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Now, consider DVRs, BluRay players, Receiver/Amplifiers, Televisions,
>>> etc. where there are, currently, no IPv6 capable choices available to
>>> the best of my knowledge.
>
> I think t
ICANN != a good sampling of number resource issues or concerns.
As you noticed, the whole mess with domain names and their IP issues
is the monetary tail that wags the ICANN dog. ICANN barely pays attention
to number resources and when they do, it’s primarily to do whatever has
been agreed upon by
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 01:02:15 AM George, Wes wrote:
> For example: in ~September 2013 I was pleasantly
> surprised to find (via some colleagues observing it in
> the UI) that a number of current Sony TVs and BluRay
> players do in fact support IPv6, but at the time, it
> wasn’t listed as a f
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 19:02 -0400, George, Wes wrote:
> Similarly, Belkin’s home routers appear to support IPv6, but that doesn’t
> appear in the specs or features list on their site when I just checked it.
There's also an issue of what "IPv6 support" actually means. A few years
ago it meant "has
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
> >=20
> > However, I also don't think consumer education is the answer:
> > http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/consumeraction.htm
> > Summary: Until it is perfectly clear why a consumer needs IPv6, and =
> what
> > they need to do about it, consumer education will on
On 6/18/14, 4:09 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>>
>>Now, consider DVRs, BluRay players, Receiver/Amplifiers, Televisions,
>>etc. where there are, currently, no IPv6 capable choices available to
>>the best of my knowledge.
I think this thread exemplifies a problem among the IPv6 early adopters
who li
My Apple TV appears to use IPv6, but since there's no UI for it (last I
checked) I had to disable SLAAC on that subnet to keep it from trying to use my
slow connection.
So in my book, "some" v6 support is actually worse than "none"
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
On Jun 18, 2014, at 1:0
On 6/18/14, 1:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> However, I also don't think consumer education is the answer:
>> http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/consumeraction.htm Summary: Until it
>> is perfectly clear why a consumer needs IPv6, and what they need to
>> do about it, consumer education will only ca
Not to mix this up but one of the main reasons I attended ICANN
meetings over several years was an interest in the IPv4/IPv6
transition.
To say interest was sparse is an under, er, over statement.
There was a good session on legacy IPs, a topic more than marginally
related, in Toronto in fall 20
>
> However, I also don't think consumer education is the answer:
> http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/consumeraction.htm
> Summary: Until it is perfectly clear why a consumer needs IPv6, and what
> they need to do about it, consumer education will only cause fear and
> frustration, which will not be
On 6/18/14 3:38 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>> 2. Older gateways, especially consumer-owned retail devices, don't
>>support
>> IPv6. Churn would help, if new retail gateways supported IPv6.
>
>Several do now. What are $CABLECO, $CE_STORES, etc. doing to make sure
>consumers choose these or at l
> 2. Older gateways, especially consumer-owned retail devices, don't support
> IPv6. Churn would help, if new retail gateways supported IPv6.
Several do now. What are $CABLECO, $CE_STORES, etc. doing to make sure
consumers choose these or at least realize the consequences of failing to
choose
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
> Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile have great IPv6 deployments, too, maybe a
> couple more years for older handsets to age out. Still, >50% of VzW LTE
> devices use IPv6 now.
>
ISTR that every VZW LTE device is IPv6 ready/capable/connected, and
On 6/17/14 6:12 PM, "Andrew Fried" wrote:
>IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
>users have access to IPv6 connectivity.
How many users have access to IPv6 connectivity?
Since this is NANOG, let's talk about North America.
Canada is way behind, just 0.4% dep
A thought exercise for folks that think we need more network bits or fewer host
bits or whatever...
If you went from 64/64 to 96/32, what would you do with all those additional
network numbers?
Would you still assign /48s to end-sites or would you move that down to /80?
If you'd move that to /
Op 18 jun. 2014, om 11:41 heeft Martin Geddes het
volgende geschreven:
> "IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
> users have access to IPv6 connectivity."
>
> It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
> 2% penetration is a stron
On Jun 18, 2014, at 09:56 , Niels Bakker wrote:
> * m...@martingeddes.com (Martin Geddes) [Wed 18 Jun 2014, 18:17 CEST]:
>> It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
>> 2% penetration is a strong hint that the costs outweigh the benefits.
The 2% number is also n
* m...@martingeddes.com (Martin Geddes) [Wed 18 Jun 2014, 18:17 CEST]:
It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
2% penetration is a strong hint that the costs outweigh the benefits.
Never before have we run out of IPv4 address space, so this time may
well be d
"IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
users have access to IPv6 connectivity."
It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
2% penetration is a strong hint that the costs outweigh the benefits.
IP's global addressing system is broken
.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:42 PM
To: Mark Andrews
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
On Jun 17, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In m
On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> One could make a valid argument that this is no worse than systems with
> misconfigured IPv4 who cannot reach Google at all even if they don't publish
> records because their IPv4 is so badly misconfigured that it doesn't
> work either. I
1 - 100 of 253 matches
Mail list logo
