On 04/29/2013 11:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
If the existing cards handle CGN without additional licensing, then the only
real cost is personal, my sanity, and the company need/will not factor that in.
One thing to consider is what the new support load will be from issues dealing
with CGN causin
On 4/29/2013 12:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
What does the CGN cost you per subscriber (equipment, additional staff, etc.?)
In my case, very little. Equipment was covered by bandwidth usage which
mandated upgrading to higher end routers that support more than I need.
It looks like my trios ha
On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 4/29/2013 11:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Best of luck with that strategy. I think this ignores the growing IPv4
>> demand that will be coming from your business customers and assumes that
>> your residential customers are all that you have
On 4/29/2013 11:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Best of luck with that strategy. I think this ignores the growing IPv4
demand that will be coming from your business customers and assumes
that your residential customers are all that you have to stack onto
these addresses.
The residential currently
On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 4/29/2013 3:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Depends. Unless there is sufficient mass of residential subscribers willing
>> to pay the premium for CGN (unlikely in my estimation), it'll make the most
>> sense for residential providers to simply t
On 4/29/2013 3:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Depends. Unless there is sufficient mass of residential subscribers
willing to pay the premium for CGN (unlikely in my estimation), it'll
make the most sense for residential providers to simply turn off IPv4
services and tell laggard web sites like Amazo
On Apr 28, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 4/28/13, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I don't see turning IPv4 off as a short-term goal for anyone.
>> OTOH, I do see the cost of maintaining residential IPv4 service escalating
>> over about the next 5-7 years.
>
> Yes... Which I interpret to res
On 4/29/13, Jakob Heitz wrote:
> That's evil.
> Charge what it costs to provide each service.
> If and when it costs more to provide IPv4 service (and only then), then
> charge more for it.
Which of the below do you suggest is evil? Offering an IPv6 only
service and charging a lower price for it
On 4/28/13 3:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
-- for example: large Cable providers getting together and agreeing to
implement a 100ms RTT latency penalty for IPv4
we do not see intentionally damaging our customers as a big sales
feature. but we think all our competitors should do so.
This business
ay for the address). Then the
tide might turn.
> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:34:48 -0500
> From: Jimmy Hess
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
On 4/28/13, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I don't see turning IPv4 off as a short-term goal for anyone.
> OTOH, I do see the cost of maintaining residential IPv4 service escalating
> over about the next 5-7 years.
Yes... Which I interpret to result in an outcome of less service,
for more cost, for resi
I don't see turning IPv4 off as a short-term goal for anyone.
OTOH, I do see the cost of maintaining residential IPv4 service escalating over
about the next 5-7 years.
Lee Howard sees roughly the same thing. (He has fancier math and better
statistics than I used).
Bottom line, it is unlikely t
On 4/28/13, Randy Bush wrote:
>> -- for example: large Cable providers getting together and agreeing to
>> implement a 100ms RTT latency penalty for IPv4
> we do not see intentionally damaging our customers as a big sales
> feature. but we think all our competitors should do so.
Yes, I do real
> -- for example: large Cable providers getting together and agreeing to
> implement a 100ms RTT latency penalty for IPv4
we do not see intentionally damaging our customers as a big sales
feature. but we think all our competitors should do so.
randy
On 4/28/13, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Doing away with IPv4 isn't a sane short-term goal for anyone
> who wants global internet connectivity/reachability, period.
Breaking global connectivity is bad. I don't see networks turning off ipv4.
I would favor differentiation of network characteristics --
> Doing away with IPv4 isn't a sane short-term goal for anyone
who wants global internet connectivity/reachability, period.
folk who advocate disconnecting from ipv4 should lead by example or
stfu. either way, it would reduce the drivel level.
randy
In message <05cd8f9b-46dd-4069-9ebe-2c922...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
writes:
>
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Jima wrote:
>
> > On 2013-04-26 01:29, Don Gould wrote:
> >> I agree with others that there is still way to much XP and other non
> >> supporting platforms and I suspect that by the
On 2013-04-27 11:01, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 26, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Jima wrote:
On 2013-04-26 01:29, Don Gould wrote:
I agree with others that there is still way to much XP and other non
supporting platforms and I suspect that by the time we get those out of
the system we'll be most of the way
On 4/27/13 1:22 , Jima wrote:
On 2013-04-26 23:08, shawn wilson wrote:
There's ways around it for most software but old jetdirect stuff,
switches, routers, ip control systems. Things are going to be 6to4 for a
while. In fact I won't be surprised to see little hardware boxes that do
it for $30 or
On Apr 26, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Jima wrote:
> On 2013-04-26 01:29, Don Gould wrote:
>> I agree with others that there is still way to much XP and other non
>> supporting platforms and I suspect that by the time we get those out of
>> the system we'll be most of the way there for IPv6 access.
>
> A
In message <517b608a.9060...@jima.us>, Jima writes:
> On 2013-04-26 23:08, shawn wilson wrote:
> > There's ways around it for most software but old jetdirect stuff,
> > switches, routers, ip control systems. Things are going to be 6to4 for a
> > while. In fact I won't be surprised to see little ha
On 2013-04-26 23:08, shawn wilson wrote:
There's ways around it for most software but old jetdirect stuff,
switches, routers, ip control systems. Things are going to be 6to4 for a
while. In fact I won't be surprised to see little hardware boxes that do
it for $30 or so (probably late with this id
There's ways around it for most software but old jetdirect stuff, switches,
routers, ip control systems. Things are going to be 6to4 for a while. In
fact I won't be surprised to see little hardware boxes that do it for $30
or so (probably late with this idea but have no need to know).
On Apr 27, 20
On 2013-04-26 01:29, Don Gould wrote:
I agree with others that there is still way to much XP and other non
supporting platforms and I suspect that by the time we get those out of
the system we'll be most of the way there for IPv6 access.
And heck, you don't even need to get rid of XP for IPv6
If the hosting provider can still charge for IPv4 addresses, why would
they support SNI or IPv6 SSL ;)
I have seen a CDN using certificates with tons of domain names in
subject alternative name. Old Symbian phones don't support SAN..
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> -
Hi Jay,
The DTC hosting control panel team had a chat about this issue earlier
in the year.
http://gplhost.sg/lists/dtcdev/msg03482.html - Interesting reading.
I followed a little, but decided that SNI just isn't worth our time.
In my personal view, an hour spent on SNI is an hour wasted tha
On Apr 25, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 00:19 , joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
>>> Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran
>>> bigger
>>> networks:
>>>
>>> Does anyone know how much IPv4 spa
On Apr 26, 2013 12:29 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 00:19 , joel jaeggli wrote:
> > On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> >> Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran
bigger
> >> networks:
> >>
> >> Does anyone know how much IPv4 space
On 4/25/13 9:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 26, 2013, at 00:19 , joel jaeggli wrote:
On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran bigger
networks:
Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cat
On Apr 26, 2013, at 00:19 , joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran bigger
>> networks:
>>
>> Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
>> to the fact that HTTPS requir
On 4/25/13 6:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran bigger
networks:
Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
It doesn't, or doesn't if if you
On 04/25/2013 09:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "David Hubbard"
The web server has to support it too, which means compiling
apache with SNI support and there are of course plenty of
hosts running old apache.
Well, sure, but for the hoster, it's a direct benefi
On Apr 25, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Chris Adams"
>
>> Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
>>> Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
>>> to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
>>>
- Original Message -
> From: "David Hubbard"
> The web server has to support it too, which means compiling
> apache with SNI support and there are of course plenty of
> hosts running old apache.
Well, sure, but for the hoster, it's a direct benefit, not an externality;
they have motive t
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:47 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
>
>
> When you say "it is mostly deployed", what exactly do you
> mean? Is it
> layer 7 or 4? Does it live in libraries that can
- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Adams"
> Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
> > Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
> > to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
> >
> > Is that a statistically significant percentage of all t
t; From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:25 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: IPv6 and HTTPS
>
> Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to
> if I ran bigger
> networks:
>
> Does anyone know how much IP
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
> Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
> to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
>
> Is that a statistically significant percentage of all the IPs in use?
I have no numbers, but my gut feeling is that
Ok, here's a stupid question[1], which I'd know the answer to if I ran bigger
networks:
Does anyone know how much IPv4 space is allocated *specifically* to cater
to the fact that HTTPS requires a dedicated IP per DNS name?
Is that a statistically significant percentage of all the IPs in use?
Wa
40 matches
Mail list logo
