On 7/14/15, 11:16 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Randy Bush"
wrote:
>> While the base curve it runs on is running ahead of the measured traffic
>> curve, the measure of IPv6 enabled browsers is a reasonable indicator
>>for
>> what is happening.
>
>we're an isp, with ipv6 enabled since 1997. we measur
Wait… You’re trying to convince me that it’s easier to understand “You have
this box in the way. It blocks many of the packets you want and some of the
packets you don’t want. It also does weird things to the header in the
process.” than it is to understand “You have this box. By default it only
> While the base curve it runs on is running ahead of the measured traffic
> curve, the measure of IPv6 enabled browsers is a reasonable indicator for
> what is happening.
we're an isp, with ipv6 enabled since 1997. we measure real traffic,
not wishes of what could be.
randy
Randy Bush wrote:
> > I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the
> > distraction might help with those still holding out hope.
>
> i think that is unfair to the ipv6 fanboys (and girls). ipv6 use is
increasing
> slowly. i bet it hits 10% by the time we retire.
Are you p
> Since IPV6 does not have NAT,
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos11.4/topics/concept/ipv6-nat-overview.html,
but perhaps you meant something else.
> it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall.
Not really. I suspect a stateful firewall for IPv6 will loo
On Jul 14, 2015, at 7:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> But.. But... How does that work without using UPNP? :)
SHOUT LOUDER!
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:33:39 -0400, Curtis Maurand said:
> Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman
> to understand their firewall.
Like "the layman" actually understand what a PS3 means by "NAT Type 2"
without consulting Google?
pgpeqQ_4S0wzb.pgp
Description:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:51:25 -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg said:
> Are we *still* doing this argument?!?
>
> block all
> pass out on $extif keep state
>
> Is it that fucking difficult for people to figure out? Really?
But.. But... How does that work without using UPNP? :)
pgpRo85NVvJFi.pgp
Descr
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
> Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to
> understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on
> the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the
> clients get ev
On Jul 14, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
> Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to
> understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the
> otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get
> eve
15. Jul 2015 01:33 by cmaur...@xyonet.com:
>
> Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to
> understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on
> the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the
> clients get everything
In message <55a5b873.5010...@xyonet.com>, Curtis Maurand writes:
>
> Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman
> to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple.
> ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes,
> all the
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman
to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple.
ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes,
all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall.
-C
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 16:09, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
> i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for the
> layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake.
Who is the layman in this story? Almost every system I work with at home and in
the datac
i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for
the layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake.
--Curtis
On 7/14/2015 7:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the
distraction might help with
> I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the
> distraction might help with those still holding out hope.
i think that is unfair to the ipv6 fanboys (and girls). ipv6 use is
increasing slowly. i bet it hits 10% by the time we retire.
randy
"Tony Hain" writes:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest!
>
> That would take too long to get organized. Just suspend fees and policy
> requirements and give one to each of the first 400 requestors. Overall it
> would reduce costs related to evaluating "need", s
My proposal to dump the rest of the v4 space this way was rejected as a policy
proposal already.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest!
>
> That would take too long to get
Owen DeLong wrote:
> I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest!
That would take too long to get organized. Just suspend fees and policy
requirements and give one to each of the first 400 requestors. Overall it
would reduce costs related to evaluating "need", so the lack of fee income
would not
I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest!
(just kidding)
Owen
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 04:37 , Scott, Robert D. wrote:
>
> If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they allocated
> their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool now.
>
> https://www.arin.ne
20 matches
Mail list logo
