Zach,
I've had no issues here since launching ipv6 other than that the
performance isn't amazing.
Andrew
On 1/8/2014 7:29 PM, Zach Hanna wrote:
OK. So who other than Andrew was able to get this working (and keep it
working) ?
I'm about to place an order for slow-verse for my residence...
-Z
OK. So who other than Andrew was able to get this working (and keep it
working) ?
I'm about to place an order for slow-verse for my residence...
-Z-
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
> On 04/12/13 23:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Please tell me what provider is selling 100Mbi
On 12/9/13 2:03 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
It costs you nothing to let people use capacity that would otherwise go
to waste, and it increases the perceived value of your service. Your
customers will eventually find themselves depending on that exces
- Original Message -
> From: "Jared Mauch"
> While fiber installation can be expensive, one needs to ask the local
> municipalities to install extra conduit every time the earth is broken
> for a local project.
You will perhaps recall that I put NANOG through teaching me that exact
thing
On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> It costs you nothing to let people use capacity that would otherwise go
>> to waste, and it increases the perceived value of your service. Your
>> customers will eventually find themselves depending on that excess
>> capacity often enough that
- Original Message -
> From: "Phil Karn"
> On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> > Currently, without a limit, there is nothing to convince a end user to
> > make any attempt at conserving bandwidth and no revenue to cover the
> > cost of additional equipment to serve high bandw
On 12/8/2013 9:48 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Very specifically:
A 3270 that took 5 seconds of delay and then *snapped* the entire screen
up at once was perceived as "faster" than a 9600 tty that painted the same
entire screen in about a second and a half or so. Don't remember who it
was either, bu
On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:37:05 +, Gary Buhrmaster said:
> It has been a long long time, but for the truly crazy, I
> thought it was possible to write single characters at a
> time (using a Set Buffer Address and then the character)
> as long as you had set up the field attributes previously.
> L
On 04/12/13 23:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Please tell me what provider is selling 100Mbit for $20-30 in the 408-532-
> area of San Jose, California.
>
> Currently, the only provider capable of delivering more than 768k wired
> here is charging me $100+/month for 30-50Mbps maximum.
>
> I could g
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> ... With 3270 you have little choice other
> than "full screen" transactions.
It has been a long long time, but for the truly crazy, I
thought it was possible to write single characters at a
time (using a Set Buffer Address and then the character
On 12/8/2013 11:48 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Crocker"
I seem to recall an early bit of research on interactive computing
(maybe by Sackman) that showed user preference for a /worse/ average
response time that was more predictable (narrower range of vari
On 12/9/2013 12:48 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> A 3270 that took 5 seconds of delay and then *snapped* the entire screen
> up at once was perceived as "faster" than a 9600 tty that painted the same
> entire screen in about a second and a half or so. Don't remember who it
> was either, but likely Bell
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
We have the same deal here, for the same price per month you can have access
to ~80 megabit/s LTE, or you can have 100/10 cable. The problem is that with
LTE you get 80 gigabytes/month in cap. The cable connection doesn't have a
cap.
It does now,
- Original Message -
> From: "Dave Crocker"
> I seem to recall an early bit of research on interactive computing
> (maybe by Sackman) that showed user preference for a /worse/ average
> response time that was more predictable (narrower range of variance)
> than a better average time that
On 12/8/2013 7:55 PM, Phil Karn wrote:
It costs you nothing to let people use capacity that would otherwise go
to waste, and it increases the perceived value of your service.
Sometimes, yes. Othertimes, perhaps not.
I seem to recall an early bit of research on interactive computing
(maybe b
On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> Currently, without a limit, there is nothing to convince a end user to
> make any attempt at conserving bandwidth and no revenue to cover the
> cost of additional equipment to serve high bandwidth customers.By
> adding a cap or overage charge we
On 12/6/13 8:14 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Thanks for the stats, real life is always refreshing :)
It seems to me -- all things being equal -- that the real question is
whether Mr. Hog is impacting your
other users. If he's not, then what difference does it make if he
consumes the bits, or if
On Dec 6, 2013 5:16 PM, "Michael Thomas" wrote:
>
> On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>
>>
>> I realize most of the NANOG operators are not running end user networks
anymore. Real consumption data:
>>
>> Monthly_GBCountPercent
>> <100GB 3658 90%
>> 100-149
On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I realize most of the NANOG operators are not running end user
networks anymore. Real consumption data:
Monthly_GBCountPercent
<100GB 3658 90%
100-149 368 10%
150-199 173 4.7%
200-249 97 2
On Dec 5, 2013, at 16:35 , Phil Karn wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 02:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> If AT&T has capped me, then, I haven’t managed to hit the cap as yet.
>> Admittedly, the connection isn’t always as reliable as $CABLECO, but
>> when it works, it tends to work at full speed and it doe
On 12/5/13 7:35 PM, Phil Karn wrote:
On 12/05/2013 02:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If AT&T has capped me, then, I haven’t managed to hit the cap as yet.
Admittedly, the connection isn’t always as reliable as $CABLECO, but
when it works, it tends to work at full speed and it does work the
vast majo
On 12/05/2013 02:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If AT&T has capped me, then, I haven’t managed to hit the cap as yet.
> Admittedly, the connection isn’t always as reliable as $CABLECO, but
> when it works, it tends to work at full speed and it does work the
> vast majority of the time.
AT&T threaten
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
I generally get around 40-50 Mbps over LTE.
Downloading 500Gig at that rate would be roughly 1/2 of the maximum possible
throughput for the entire month.
Nope. 350 gigabyte in a month is an average of 1 megabit/s over the
entire month.
won’t reach pa
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:54 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Depends on your carrier. From AT&T, I have $29 unlimited and I have
>> definitely cranked down more over that (faster) LTE connection in some
>> months than through my $100+ cable connection.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Depends on your carrier. From AT&T, I have $29 unlimited and I have definitely
cranked down more over that (faster) LTE connection in some months than through my
$100+ cable connection.
From VZW, I'm paying $100+/month and only getting 10GB over LTE, but
On Dec 4, 2013, at 13:43 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that cellular
>> providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that means that the
>> rest of the math behind the scenes must wor
In message , Lee Howard writes:
>
>
> On 12/3/13 7:14 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
> >
> >In message <529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru>, Nikolay Shopik writes:
> >> On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> > I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who
> >>wants them and we do
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that cellular
providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that means that
the rest of the math behind the scenes must work somehow.
Cost != price.
Also, wireless providers are not delive
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:35 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth is
>> rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer levels.
>
> Have you seen the cost of an LTE ba
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth
is rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer
levels.
Have you seen the cost of an LTE base station including install and
monthly fees? If you did, you wou
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:32 , Nikolay Shopik wrote:
> On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> In message <529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru>, Nikolay Shopik writes:
>>> On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants
them and we
On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru>, Nikolay Shopik writes:
>> On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants
>>> them and we don't charge for IPv6 add
>> ress space.
>>
>> There is so
In message <529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru>, Nikolay Shopik writes:
> On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants
> > them and we don't charge for IPv6 add
> ress space.
>
> There is some ISP who afraid their users will be resell
On Dec 3, 2013, at 00:21 , Nikolay Shopik wrote:
> On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants them
>> and we don't charge for IPv6 address space.
>
> There is some ISP who afraid their users will be reselling their
> connect
Cutler James R writes:
> Does this mean we can all get back to solving real IPv6 deployment and
> operations problems?
I sure hope so. :)
> I certainly hope you all can finally see which is the better business choice
> between:
>
> 1. Using up to around 10% of IPv6 space to make our netwo
On 2-12-2013 22:25, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone *is*
> paying for that space. Yes, it's waste; giving everyone 256 networks
You clearly have no understanding of route aggregation
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants them
> and we don't charge for IPv6 address space.
There is some ISP who afraid their users will be reselling their
connectivity to other users around. While I didin't see that in years
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Eric Oosting wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ricky Beam" writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
>> wrote:
So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse
>> 6rd...
>>> ...
>>
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> "Ricky Beam" writes:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
> wrote:
> >> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse
> 6rd...
> > ...
> > Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space --
On Dec 2, 2013, at 20:11 , Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> "Ricky Beam" writes:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
>> ...
>> Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone
>>
Two major versions back, is fairly ancient in internet years, yes.
Owen
On Dec 2, 2013, at 19:58 , david raistrick wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Given that 10.7 is fairly ancient at this point
>
> I know, right? 2.5 years old is -ancient-
>
> . o O ( sigh )
>
>
>
>
On 12/2/2013 7:41 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- o...@delong.com wrote:
From: Owen DeLong
I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major
operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they
were an effort to discourage the consumption of the a
On 12/2/2013 6:15 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
I have some good news for you.
"Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
> ...
> Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone
> *is* paying for that space. Yes, it's waste; giving everyone
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Given that 10.7 is fairly ancient at this point
I know, right? 2.5 years old is -ancient-
. o O ( sigh )
--
david raistrickhttp://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
dr...@icantclick.org ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail
On Dec 2, 2013, at 19:34 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:03:59 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Not counting MAC users, because they cannot do DHCPv6 without 3rd party
>>> software.
>>
>> My Macs seem to do DHCPv6 just fine here without third party software, so
>> I'm not sure what
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:03:59 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not counting MAC users, because they cannot do DHCPv6 without 3rd party
software.
My Macs seem to do DHCPv6 just fine here without third party software,
so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
I've heard many reports of apple not
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:02:39 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not really... First of all, domain or other windows authentication could
be used to validate the request.
Most home networks aren't part of a domain. (unless they're using versions
beyond "home", they can't)
Second, if it's site-scope
On Dec 2, 2013, at 18:05 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:18:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You don't, but it's easy enough for Windows to do discovery and/or
>> negotiation for firewall holes with multicast and avoid making
> ...
>
> Actually, your process still makes a very dan
On Dec 2, 2013, at 18:20 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:27:36 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s) can
>>> be smaller than /64. I don't want to give them any ideas, but Uverse could
>>> use their monopoly on router
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
The standards orgs shot us all
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:56:13 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
- A /56 is horribly wrong and the world will end if we don't fix it NOW.
I'm reminded of the Comcast trial deployments. Wasn't their conclusion
(with a collective thumbs up from the networking world) to go with /56?
Yet, even they a
> From: Owen DeLong
>
> I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major
> operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they
> were an effort to discourage the consumption of the addresses and/or the use
> of static addresses and to try an
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:27:36 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s)
can be smaller than /64. I don't want to give them any ideas, but
Uverse could use their monopoly on routers to make your lan a DHCP only
/120.
I think if they di
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:18:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
You don't, but it's easy enough for Windows to do discovery and/or
negotiation for firewall holes with multicast and avoid making
...
Actually, your process still makes a very dangerous assumption... you have
to assume the address passe
On Dec 2, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> DHCPv6-PD isn't a "restriction", it's simply what gets handed out today. A
> "simple" reconfiguration on the DHCP server and it's handing out /56's
> instead. (or *allowing* /56's if requested -- it's better to let the customer
> ask for what th
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:07:40 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Whenever they split or combine a CMTS or head-end...
Shouldn't matter unless they're moving things across DHCP servers. (which
is likely from what I've heard about TWC, and seen from my own modems. In
fact, the addresses in my office c
--- o...@delong.com wrote:
From: Owen DeLong
I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major
operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they
were an effort to discourage the consumption of the addresses and/or the use
of static addres
On Dec 2, 2013, at 17:20 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:16:27 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> So you go from one extreme to another. One lan to one lan-per-device.
>
> No. I'm complaning about how the automatic solution to segmenting the home
> ("homenet") doesn't put any though
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:57 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> (Hint, NEST has already released an IPv4 smoke detector).
>
> And they really should have enabled IPv6 on it :-(
> But the processor should be able to handle it, if
> they update t
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:45 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:54:24 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I said Site-Scoped multicast (ffx5::)
>
> And just how does one telnet/ssh/smb/http/whatever to another machine via
> MULTICAST? You don't. Locating the machine isn't the issue; having an
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:16:27 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
So you go from one extreme to another. One lan to one lan-per-device.
No. I'm complaning about how the automatic solution to segmenting the
home ("homenet") doesn't put any thought into it at all, and puts
everything in it's own net
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:15 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> ... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
>
> Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
> support yet another alteration to the standards.
>
>> For the fe
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> (Hint, NEST has already released an IPv4 smoke detector).
And they really should have enabled IPv6 on it :-(
But the processor should be able to handle it, if
they update the firmware. I hear Tado does IPv6.
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > ... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
>
> Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
> support yet another alteration to the standards.
Guess what, networks evolv
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:54:24 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
I said Site-Scoped multicast (ffx5::)
And just how does one telnet/ssh/smb/http/whatever to another machine via
MULTICAST? You don't. Locating the machine isn't the issue; having an
address that can be trivially determined as "local" i
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain wrote:
> > If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment,
>
> I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it
> today, you get a /64 without doing anything. If that'
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
For the few residential ISP's that do this what is it? $5 / month
pe
On Dec 2, 2013, at 15:45 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:54:50 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I don't know why you think that the PC and Laptop can't talk to each other.
>> It actually seems to work just fine. They both default to the upstream
>> router and the router has more spec
On Dec 2, 2013, at 15:10 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain wrote:
>> If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment,
>
> I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it today,
> you get a /64 without doing anything
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:54:50 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
I don't know why you think that the PC and Laptop can't talk to each
other. It actually seems to work just fine. They both default to the
upstream router and the router has more specifics to each of the two LAN
segments.
You are confu
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain wrote:
If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment,
I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it
today, you get a /64 without doing anything. If that's all you need, then
you're done. If you
On 12/02/2013 02:35 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
We don't know what we'll need in the future. We only know what we need
right now. Using the current dynamic mechanisms we can provide for now
and "later", as "later" becomes apparent.
I hate to keep repeating this, but each time the argument comes up th
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways
> > now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
>
> Interesting... I've not looked at the current "high e
On Dec 2, 2013, at 14:35 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways now
>> come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
>
> Interesting... I've not looked at the curre
On Dec 2, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Ricky Beam wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
>> wrote:
>>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse
> 6rd...
>>
>> Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable
> user
>>
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways
now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
Interesting... I've not looked at the current "high end" (i.e. things that
cost more than $17 at T
Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
> wrote:
> > So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse
6rd...
>
> Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable
user
> want/need.
>
> How many residential, "home networks", hav
On Dec 2, 2013, at 13:25 , Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
>
> Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable user
> want/need.
>
> How many resid
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:31:08 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time...
I suspect it'll fall the other way. In a few decades, people will be
wondering what we were smoking to have carved up this /8 (and maybe a few
of them by then) in such an insanely sparse ("wa
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable
user want/need.
How many residential, "home networks", have you seen with more than one
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Darren Pilgrim wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2013 1:07 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>> > Is a /60 what is considered generous these days?
>>
>> Comcast only gives you a /64.
>
> That could be awkward for anyone who wants to run a separate LAN for
> wired
jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com writes:
>> IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time this line of reasoning [...]
>
> Hopefully, the fullness of time won't apply to 6RD (this is what
> was being discussed here, not dual-stack).
I agree but there's a subtlety here - we don't want to get peo
> De : Rob Seastrom
> > This space wouldn't be used much anyway,
> > given that most 6RD routers use only one /64, sometimes two.
> > I argue that a /60 is actually the best compromise here, from
> > a space and usage point of view.
>
> IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time this line of re
Wait, ISPs rolling out native dual stack are "victimizing" their customers?
From: Owen DeLong [o...@delong.com]
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 4:41 AM
To: Leo Vegoda
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
Agreed…
Hi,
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 11/28/2013 1:07 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> > Is a /60 what is considered generous these days?
>
> Comcast only gives you a /64.
That could be awkward for anyone who wants to run a separate LAN for
wired and wireless. I hope it's only temporary.
Cheers,
Leo
smime
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Is a /60 what is considered generous these days?
I do not think so. I think that is more minimal than generous.
> I thought a /48 was
> considered normal and a /56 was considered a bit tight. What prefix
> lengths are residential access
jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com writes:
> Offering /48s out of a single /16 block, to take a simple example,
> would use a whole /32.
Sounds as if your organization can justify more than the /32
"minimum/default" allocation of IPv6 then (I'd imagine you have more
than a minimum-assignme
They are all the same, ATT, Bell Canada, Cogeco..
On 11/29/13, jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com
wrote:
>> De : Mikael Abrahamsson
>> A : Mark Andrews ,
>> >>> You can hand out /48 as easily with 6rd as you can natively.
>>
>> "As easily". It's easier to either hand out /64 by means of
> De : Mikael Abrahamsson
> A : Mark Andrews ,
> >>> You can hand out /48 as easily with 6rd as you can natively.
>
> "As easily". It's easier to either hand out /64 by means of 1:1 mapping
> IPv4 and IPv6, or (if ability exists) hand out /48 or /56 using PD, than
> to get into the whole back
I'd like to call everyone's attention to ARIN's policy on IPv6
transition space https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six531 which
was created specifically in response to the standardization of 6rd.
The discussion at the time that this policy was under consideration
was that encoding the [m,n] in
On Nov 28, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Andrew D Kirch wrote:
>
> Was I the only one who thought that everything about this was great
> apart from this comment:
>
>> In reality additional poking leads me to believe AT&T gives you a
> rather
>> generous /60
>
> Is a /60 what is consi
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message , Mikael
Abrahamsson writes:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
You can hand out /48 as easily with 6rd as you can natively.
You're contradicting yourself here.
What contradiction?
"As easily". It's easier to either hand out /6
In message , Mikael
Abrahamsson writes:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > You can hand out /48 as easily with 6rd as you can natively.
> >
> > It's only when the ISP is lazy and encodes the entire IPv4 address
> > space into 6rd thereby wasting most of the IPv6 address space being
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
You can hand out /48 as easily with 6rd as you can natively.
It's only when the ISP is lazy and encodes the entire IPv4 address
space into 6rd thereby wasting most of the IPv6 address space being
used for 6rd that a /60 appears to be generous.
You're c
In message
,
"Constantine A. Murenin" writes:
> On 28 November 2013 14:56, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > In message
> >
> > , "Constantine A. Murenin" writes:
> >> On 28 November 2013 13:07, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> >> > Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Was I the only one who thought that everyt
On 28 November 2013 14:56, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message
>
> , "Constantine A. Murenin" writes:
>> On 28 November 2013 13:07, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>> > Andrew D Kirch wrote:
>> >
>> > Was I the only one who thought that everything about this was great
>> > apart from this comment:
>> >
>> >>
In message
, "Constantine A. Murenin" writes:
> On 28 November 2013 13:07, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> > Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> >
> > Was I the only one who thought that everything about this was great
> > apart from this comment:
> >
> >> In reality additional poking leads me to believe AT&T gives you
On 28 November 2013 13:07, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Andrew D Kirch wrote:
>
> Was I the only one who thought that everything about this was great
> apart from this comment:
>
>> In reality additional poking leads me to believe AT&T gives you a
> rather
>> generous /60
>
> Is a /60 what is considered ge
Andrew D Kirch wrote:
Was I the only one who thought that everything about this was great
apart from this comment:
> In reality additional poking leads me to believe AT&T gives you a
rather
> generous /60
Is a /60 what is considered generous these days? I thought a /48 was
considered normal and
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
