Now that is what Baldrick* would call "a cunning plan!"
And interesting examples.
Christian
*Apologies to Tony Robinson and Blackadder
On 12 Mar 2011, at 18:52, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrot
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
>> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol
>> and IPv4 requires a certain
On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production networks.
>>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
>>> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
>>> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
>>> operating production networks.
>>
>> excuse me!
>
> Hi, Randy. I didn't mean to
On Feb 22, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
>>> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
>>> position seems to be most pronounced from
On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Seriously, some people will not move until the path they are on is already
> burning, which is why they did nothing over the last 5 years despite knowing
> that the IANA pool was exhausting much faster than they had wanted to
> believe. It took gett
Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
> >> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
> >> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
> >> ope
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6 is
>> the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position seems to
>> be most pronounced from people not involved in operating production
>> networks. But
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:54 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6
>> is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position
>> seems to be most pronounc
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6
> is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position
> seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in operating
> production networks.
"m
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
>> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
>> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
>> operating production networks.
>
> exc
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundem...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 8:17 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Owen DeLong; Benson Schliesser; NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for
On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing wrote:
>>
>>> Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
>>> are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
>>
>>
[ arin cesspool removed from cc: as i can not post there anyway ]
> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
> operating production netw
On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing wrote:
>
>> Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
>> are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
>
> I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and I disagr
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing wrote:
> Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
> are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and I disagree
that any of those say that the problems are specific to NAT444.
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
> > That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
> > with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
>
> it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors
> of
Running out of ban
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 12:59 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Chris Grundemann'; 'Benson Schliesser'; 'NANOG list'; 'ARIN-PPML
> List'
> Subject: Re: [ari
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
> That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
> with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors
of
randy
ANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
>> naysayer...)
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests
&
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:55 PM
> To: Benson Schliesser
> Cc: NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (w
On Feb 20, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
>> Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
>> Youtube,...), but:
Actually, many facebook and youtube features will also be degraded.
>> - Less torrenting
>> - Less Net
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
> Youtube,...), but:
> - Less torrenting
> - Less Netflix watching
> - Less FTP downloads
> - Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)
> You might take a hit on online gami
On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
>> question.
> Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a
> required functionality for IPv6-only hosts to access
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
> question.
Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a
required functionality for IPv6-only hosts to access the IPv4 domain? That'll
go down real well with end-us
On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> So, in essence, you are advocating not to
>>> interconnect the IPv4-only and IPv6-only domains in any way?
>>
>> I'm advocating not depending on any such interaction
>> working as it's pretty clear th
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> So, in essence, you are advocating not to
>> interconnect the IPv4-only and IPv6-only domains in any way?
>
> I'm advocating not depending on any such interaction
> working as it's pretty clear that
> the available solution set is fairly broken.
Fair
On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address
>> exhaustion will not result in IPv6-only hosts before we run
>> out of meaningful IPv4-only hosts?
>> No, but, I am willing to bet that we will not meaningful
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address
> exhaustion will not result in IPv6-only hosts before we run
> out of meaningful IPv4-only hosts?
> No, but, I am willing to bet that we will not meaningfully
> make the situation better for those IPv4-only host
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:59 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:48, Benson Schliesser
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that it's an imperfect analogy, so I won't bother defending it. :)
>> But my point remains: NAT444 is a deployment scenario, which includes a CGN
>> element. Othe
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:48, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> I agree that it's an imperfect analogy, so I won't bother defending it. :)
> But my point remains: NAT444 is a deployment scenario, which includes a CGN
> element. Other deployment scenarios that also include a CGN element will
> ha
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser
> wrote:
>
>> Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web. That doesn't make it
>> accurate to claim that the web is broken, and it's particularly weak support
>> for claims that
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web. That doesn't make it
> accurate to claim that the web is broken, and it's particularly weak support
> for claims that email would work better.
I don't think that's a great analogy. N
On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> The document is titled "Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network
>> Applications" and it claims to discuss NAT444 issues. However, it conflates
>> NAT444 with CGN. And it is often used a
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
>>>
>>> There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
>>>
>>> "draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewha
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You only need to solve those problems to the
>> extent that there are meaningful things still
>> trapped in an IPv4-only world.
> Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address exhaustion will not result in
>
On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
>>
>> There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
>>
>> "draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It claims to
>> analyze NAT444, but it really analy
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
> You only need to solve those problems to the
> extent that there are meaningful things still
> trapped in an IPv4-only world.
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address exhaustion will not result in
IPv6-only hosts before we run out of meaningful IPv4-onl
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> Reduce, yes. Remove, no. Without a global cutoff date for the IPv6
> transition, it's not like IPv4 is going to disappear overnight. Furthermore,
> without any IPv4/IPv6 translation, the first IPv6 only networks are going to
> be awfully lon
On Feb 18, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
>> NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
>> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
>> to have to deal with these
--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
> NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
> to have to deal with these issues in any case?
> >
> No, we need to move forward
On Feb 18, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
>
>> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to be
>> required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
>> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going to have to
On Feb 18, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>>> How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first
>>> place?
>
>>> ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.
>
>> But last time I c
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:
>
>> Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually
>> agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
>> such becomes available, so that it may be used by the In
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:50 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 17 feb 2011, at 17:35, George Bonser wrote:
>
>> Considering v4 is likely to be around for another decade or two, getting
>> Class E into general use seems easy enough to do.
>
> You really think people will be communicating over the
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>
>> In case you have not already found this:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
>
> There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
>
On 18 feb 2011, at 14:10, Arturo Servin wrote:
> When you talk about "unused" legacy space are you talking about the
> "various" space or to the legacy space that is currently assigned but the
> holders just require part of it?
Legacy space (A) = all the /8s marked as "legacy" by IANA.
Iljitsch,
In deed there were ERX unused space that were divided among RIRs, I
think it is referred as "various ERX" (pointed out by Tore).
http://bgp.potaroo.net/stats/nro/various.html
There were also ERX space transferred from ARIN DB (used to be in
InterNIC's) to RIRs becaus
On Feb 18, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>>> How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first
>>> place?
>
>>> ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.
>
>> But last time I che
On 18 feb 2011, at 12:59, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Hit your Page Down button a couple of times, it's included right there
> in the PDF.
I don't see anything that clears this up.
* Iljitsch van Beijnum
>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/wilson-to-conrad-28jan08-en.pdf
>
>>
> "Please find attached a summary spreadsheet (Excel format) providing
> the agreed distribution of administrative responsibility"
Hit your Page Down button a couple of times, it's included right t
On 18 feb 2011, at 12:36, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> Each of those /8 is
>> "administered" by a RIR, but it's unclear (to me at least) whether
>> that means that RIR gets to give out that space in its region or not.
> The unused space in the ERX blocks were divided evenly between the RIRs
> a couple
* Iljitsch van Beijnum
> By the way, IANA only deals in /8s. However, a lot of people got
> legacy /16s or other non-/8 sizes, so some /8s that are marked
> "legacy" actually contain a lot of unused space. Each of those /8 is
> "administered" by a RIR, but it's unclear (to me at least) whether
> t
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to be
> required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going to have to deal
> with these issues in any case?
I'd compare it with bor
On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first
>> place?
>> ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.
> But last time I checked, the United States is in the ARIN region. And ARIN
> did not e
On 18 feb 2011, at 9:24, Zed Usser wrote:
> Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
> Youtube,...), but:
> - Less torrenting
> - Less Netflix watching
> - Less FTP downloads
> - Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)
You forget:
- no IPv6 tunnels
Deploying NA
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:
>
>> Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually
>> agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
>> such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Inte
On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:
> Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually
> agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
> such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
> community.
How can they "return" stuff to ARIN that they
On 17 feb 2011, at 17:35, George Bonser wrote:
> Considering v4 is likely to be around for another decade or two, getting
> Class E into general use seems easy enough to do.
You really think people will be communicating over the public internet using
IPv4 in 2031?
It will take a long time befor
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> In case you have not already found this:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
"draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It
In message <00bc01cbcf19$8b3f13d0$a1bd3b70$@iname.com>, "Frank Bulk" writes:
> You're invited to work my helpdesk for a week. I'd even pay you.
>
> It's not just flashing, it's reconfiguring every wireless device in the home
> (printer, Wii, Kindle, laptop (that's not home right, will be when Sa
Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:56 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list; John Curran
Subject: Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
I think grandma is quite capable of doing it. She just needs to
be informed that it needs to be done. Most people that are scared
of doing it the
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> I think grandma is quite capable of doing it. She just needs to
> be informed that it needs to be done.
On my planet (Earth), this isn't likely ever happen.
-Steve
In message <20110218020622.ga10...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
> Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
>
> > > An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Jus
> t lo
> > > ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your on
> ly o
> > > ption.
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> Remember a lot of this problem is the direct result of vendors not
> acting soon enough and that includes CISCO. Asking those vendors
> to do a bit of work to fixup the results of their bad decisions is
> not unreasonable. They can't fix hardware limitati
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> > An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Just
> > lo
> > ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your only
> > o
> > ption.
>
> And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
>
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message <1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com>, Owen =
> DeLong write
> > s:
> >>>=20
> >>> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> >>> to support IPv6 a
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests otherwise,
> I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the possibility that NAT444
> breaks stuff - that feels right in my gut - but I haven't found any valid
> ev
>
> But way way way more time to deploy the patched kernel than to
forklift
> the
> devices with IPv6 capable ones which don't require patching the
kernel,
> either.
>
> The kernel patch is, at best, an expensive stop gap. At worst, it is a
> counter
> productive waste of time. At best it's sligh
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> write
> s:
>>>
Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
s
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> write
> s:
>>>
>>> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
>>> to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
>>> code.
In message <1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> >
> > You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> > to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
> > code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <20110217203639.ga3...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
>> George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
>>
>>> Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
>>> there (including some Cisco gear), the extent
In message <20110217203922.gb3...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
> Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
>
> > Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it? In many cases
> > it is a minimal change. I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
>
> They are in the business of selling new gea
In message <20110217203639.ga3...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
> George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
>
> > Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
> > there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
> > usable today could be surprising
In message <5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> >
> >> Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
> >> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
> >> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely a
>
> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
> code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
> box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
>
Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifti
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it? In many cases
> it is a minimal change. I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
They are in the business of selling new gear, not enabling features on EOL
equipment :)
-Steve
George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
> Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
> there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
> usable today could be surprising.
An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Jus
In message <32ecc9cd-d927-4407-914c-751316c59...@istaff.org>, John Curran write
s:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> >> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> >> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> >
> > Yep, and that
In message , Came
ron Byrne writes:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> >> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us =
> a few more months, but:
> >>
> >> Does the US government real
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>
>
> On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
>>>
>>> ??
>>> Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy loss
On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
Yes, and also with mass fear and confusion at the
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
>
> ??
> Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
>
> Owen
>
>
Yes, and also with mass fear and confusion at the beginning.
--
Jeffrey Lyon, Lea
>
>> Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
>> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
>> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
>> your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
>> (cisco and m
>
> IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong writes:
>>> ...
>>> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
>>> is appropriate to the community, but,
>>
>> You mean like they already did with
On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:35 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to
>> Windows 8 and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act
>> together and deploy
>> IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
>> yo
On 2/17/2011 1:31 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
As in, "large, dedicated, and nigh unstoppable, but fraught with peril
and with a lot of mess and destruction to get through before it is
done," or as in "mainly opposed by aging crazy Nazis
> I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible. I escalated,
> still no-go, it was a "deep" problem. And they pointed to the IETF
> saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
> or whatever to fix it.
Ok, so that implies that it is burned into hardware and as
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>>> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yep, and that's great. Let
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>> >
>> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>> >
>>
>> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
>> packet like this.
>>
> >
>
> I am 100% pro making Class E defined as private unicast space.
>
> My only point is that people need to be realistic about the near term
> benefit. Yes, some linux may work. But, Microsoft and Cisco don't
> work today. Let's move it to not-reserved, but don't bet the farm on
> 240/4 so
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Owen DeLong writes:
>> ...
>> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
>> is appropriate to the community, but,
>
> You mean like they already did with 49/8, 50/8 (both formerly Joint
> Technical Command), 10/8 (
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>>> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>>> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>>
>> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7
> >
> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> >
>
> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> packet like this.
>
> Cameron
Considering how small of a change it is, simply re
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>
> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> packet like this.
So, it won't work for
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>> If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
>> you might make some progress.
>>
>> As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
>> private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IP
Owen DeLong writes:
> The DoD does not seem particularly anxious to announce or explain
> their usage of those blocks to the rest of the community.
>
> They have much larger quantities of significantly more sophisticated
> armaments than ARIN.
>
> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntari
> If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
> you might make some progress.
>
> As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
> private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
> a strategy. Seeing 240/4 actually work would
1 - 100 of 292 matches
Mail list logo
