On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If we don’t end up needing to fix other things and replace the codebase
> with something that would allow us to redo the address space in the
> next 120 years, I’ll be quite surprised.
Hi Owen,
I bet you're wrong about that. I've been doin
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 15:09 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
>> some fun examples of the size of ipv6:
>>
>> https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/
>> 2qxgxw/self_just_how_big_i
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 20:09:08 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> Thatâs OK⦠You seem to have your directions reversed...
>
> > A /48 is 16 more bits than a /32, so 65536 times bigger.
>
> You mean smaller.
The original poster obviously meant "bigger" as in "number of them available".
pgpe44xeo8iQZ.p
--- o...@delong.com wrote:
From: Owen DeLong
> But I'd argue that if I have personal nanotech, I *really* want
> to use ULA addresses. They're *my* nanotech. :)
Feel free. Personally, I still see ULA as an absurdity.
Why? More
> On Dec 19, 2017, at 18:22 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:18:57 +, "UpTide ." said:
>> If we allocate a /64 like we do single ipv4 addresses now the space gets 2^56
>> (16777216) times larger; but if we start doing something crazy like
>> allocating
>> a /48 or
DNS64 “works” if you ignore what it breaks. MAP-T does NAT46 to the NAT64 and
doesn’t have the side effects of DNS64.
Why people insist that DNS64 is a “good" way to direct traffic to the NAT 64 I
don’t understand. MAP-T directs the traffic to the NAT64 without the side
effects. DNS64 was on
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 5:54 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> As someone who has written a DNS64 implementation - DO NOT USE DNS64.
> DNS64 breaks stuff.
>
> Use MAP-T. For those of you using DNS64 on the cellar side MAP-T can use
> the NAT64 you already have.
>
> Mark
>
That’s just your opinion, man.
As someone who has written a DNS64 implementation - DO NOT USE DNS64. DNS64
breaks stuff.
Use MAP-T. For those of you using DNS64 on the cellar side MAP-T can use the
NAT64 you already have.
Mark
> On 21 Dec 2017, at 9:33 am, Jens Link wrote:
>
> Ca By writes:
>
>> http://jool.mx/en/inde
Ca By writes:
> http://jool.mx/en/index.html
>
> Free open source nat64
And the DNS64 part can be done with powerdns (recursor), unbound, bind,
... All OpenSource
Jens
--
| Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany
Excellent, thanks! Will dig into it.
Oliver
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM Oliver O'Boyle
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. There now. We need cheap, open source, options for widespread
>> adoption.
>>
>
> http://jool.mx/en/index.html
>
> Free open source
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM Oliver O'Boyle
wrote:
> Agreed. There now. We need cheap, open source, options for widespread
> adoption.
>
http://jool.mx/en/index.html
Free open source nat64
> Oliver
>
> On Dec 20, 2017 12:51, "Michael Crapse" wrote:
>
> > +1 for Nat64. dual stack is just k
On 12/19/17, 8:50 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong"
wrote:
>
>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch"
>> wrote:
>>> They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure
>>>it out, surely an ISP ca
On 12/19/17, 11:52 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mark Andrews"
wrote:
>
>> On 20 Dec 2017, at 2:39 am, Livingood, Jason
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch"
>> wrote:
>>> They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure
>>>it out, surely an ISP
Agreed. There now. We need cheap, open source, options for widespread
adoption.
Oliver
On Dec 20, 2017 12:51, "Michael Crapse" wrote:
> +1 for Nat64. dual stack is just keeping ipv4 around longer than it needs
> to be
>
> On 19 December 2017 at 18:50, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Dec 19,
+1 for Nat64. dual stack is just keeping ipv4 around longer than it needs
to be
On 19 December 2017 at 18:50, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason <
> jason_living...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch" <
> nanog-bou
On 2017-12-19 12:18 PM, UpTide . wrote:
If we allocate a /64 like we do single ipv4 addresses now the space gets 2^56
(16777216) times larger; but if we start doing something crazy like allocating
a /48 or /56 that number plummets. (256 times larger, and 65536 times larger
respectfully.)
But
> On 20 Dec 2017, at 2:39 am, Livingood, Jason
> wrote:
>
> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch"
> wrote:
>> They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure it
>> out, surely an ISP can...
>
> Except for cases when it is impossible or impractical to u
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:03:36 -0600, Bryan Holloway said:
> Comcast, at least in my neck of the woods, hands out /56s.
Hmm. Odd. Around here, they're handing out /60s. Which is OK, since I'm
living in a 3 bedroom apartment that can be covered by one router. If I had to
do downstream delegation t
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:18:57 +, "UpTide ." said:
> If we allocate a /64 like we do single ipv4 addresses now the space gets 2^56
> (16777216) times larger; but if we start doing something crazy like allocating
> a /48 or /56 that number plummets. (256 times larger, and 65536 times larger
> resp
> On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason
> wrote:
>
> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch"
> wrote:
>> They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure it
>> out, surely an ISP can...
>
> Except for cases when it is impossible or impractical to u
Comcast, at least in my neck of the woods, hands out /56s.
On 12/19/17 4:03 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
On 12/19/2017 01:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Providers assigning a single /64 or a /128 to an always-on customer are
doing it wrong. You know who you are.
The cable ISP that I had (
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Scott Morizot wrote:
>
> I think the big picture here is that they helped fund the development of IP
> and received
> large enough v4 allocations at the outset that they haven't had to use
> kludges like RFC1918
Um, sorry but as an old timer and a former employee
On 12/19/2017 01:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Providers assigning a single /64 or a /128 to an always-on customer are
doing it wrong. You know who you are.
The cable ISP that I had (prior to moving) assigned a single /64 for the
outside of the router. I could also request provider delegation
If we allocate a /64 like we do single ipv4 addresses now the space gets 2^56
(16777216) times larger; but if we start doing something crazy like allocating
a /48 or /56 that number plummets. (256 times larger, and 65536 times larger
respectfully.)
But then again I'm bad with math, maybe not?
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:56 PM, ITechGeek wrote:
> While a single network gets at /64, isn't the practice suppose to be
> providers allocating a /56 or a /60 for home users (you know so your IOT,
> wired lan, wifi, guest network, gaming systems, bathroom, bedroom, etc. can
> all be on their own
While a single network gets at /64, isn't the practice suppose to be
providers allocating a /56 or a /60 for home users (you know so your IOT,
wired lan, wifi, guest network, gaming systems, bathroom, bedroom, etc. can
all be on their own networks)?
---
On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch" wrote:
> They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure it out,
> surely an ISP can...
Except for cases when it is impossible or impractical to update software on a
great number of legacy devices…
JL
I’m pretty sure Comcast, along with most other MSOs in NA, use squat space for
various endpoints because they have run out of public and private IPv4 space.
Everyone obviously wants to get to all IPv6 but there are millions of end
devices and other gear they speak to which do not support it.
Who are you alluding to who helped fund the development of the internet?
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
From: Scott Morizot
Sent: Monday, December 18, 16:09
Subject: Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal
routing
To: Robert Webb
Cc: Mark A
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> some fun examples of the size of ipv6:
>
> https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/
> 2qxgxw/self_just_how_big_is_ipv6/
Hi Eric,
Lies, damn lies and statistics. Both projections
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Robert Webb wrote:
> > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
> > > On 18 Dec 2017, at 1:20 pm, Robert Webb wrote:
> > >
> > > Where I work I have the opposite issue. They have a lot of public IPv4
> > > space and only use it internally never be advertised to
Companies like COMCAST did. They manage the modems over IPv6.
They also supported DS-Lite’s development as a transition mechanism so they
wouldn’t have to run IPv4 to their customers. They wanted to be able to go
IPv6 only. That meant having IPv4 as a service available.
--
Mark Andrews
> O
On 17 December 2017 at 17:48, Tom Carter wrote:
> RFC1918 isn't big enough to cover all use cases. Think about a large
> internet service providers. If you have ten million customers, 10.0.0.0/8
> would be enough to number modems, but what happens when you need to number
> video set top boxes and
We found a number of such instances when working in our last year's
Internet Measurements Conference (IMC) paper [1] "A Multi-perspective
Analysis of Carrier-Grade NAT Deployment".
Back then, spring-summer 2016, we found a number of large cellular
ISPs using routable IP address space for their pri
RFC1918 isn't big enough to cover all use cases. Think about a large
internet service providers. If you have ten million customers, 10.0.0.0/8
would be enough to number modems, but what happens when you need to number
video set top boxes and voice end points? I don't think anyone goes out and
says
In a message written on Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:58:37AM -0500, Jason Iannone
wrote:
> My previous employer used 198.18/15 for CE links on IPVPN services.
This one is mostly legit:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
My previous employer used 198.18/15 for CE links on IPVPN services.
Walgreens used an American SP's space internally and couldn't talk to
any users in that space as a result.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> some fun examples of the size of ipv6:
>
> https://samsclass.info/i
some fun examples of the size of ipv6:
https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm
https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qxgxw/self_just_how_big_is_ipv6/
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Large Hadron Collider <
large.hadron.colli...@gmx.com> wrote:
> Missent.
>
> Welcome to IPv6
Missent.
Welcome to IPv6, where you have technically-reserved-for-future-use
space that should never actually need to be used. Quite likely, you can
use something like 440::/16 as your private space, but please don't do
that unless you've exhausted the true private space.
You're welcome.
O
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 9:35 PM
> To: Robert Webb
> Cc: Richard Porter ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal
> routing
>
>
>
resses is so that they are unique WORLD WIDE in whatever context
you wish to use them in.
Mark
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Porter [mailto:rich...@pedantictheory.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 8:25 PM
> To: Robert Webb
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 18:24:40 -0700
Richard Porter wrote:
> Robert,
> Ive heard of two cases recently, large companies (non carrier/ISP). One
> company looking to solve challenge with IPv6 and 6to4 and DNS.
>
> Also curious how wide-spread this is? Maybe just the kick in the butt for
> catchin
never be advertised to the internet. Something I
have never agreed
With doing.
Robert
-Original Message-
From: Richard Porter [mailto:rich...@pedantictheory.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 8:25 PM
To: Robert Webb
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Companies using public IP space
Hi,
I know of some enterprise IT equipment that does this. It was reserved space
at the time it was picked.
It does not leak from the box, but every once in a while one of these IPs show
up in a customer visible log, and causes confusion.
In ways it is better then rfc 1918 space as it has les
Robert,
I’ve heard of two cases recently, large companies (non carrier/ISP). One
company looking to solve challenge with IPv6 and 6to4 and DNS.
Also curious how wide-spread this is? Maybe just the kick in the butt for
catching the elusive IPv6 unicorn?
~Richard
> On Dec 17, 2017, at 3:30 PM, R
I had a vendor at $dayjob prior to my arrival who assigned all their
customers ip space based on the customer number. when i got there all the
internal network was assigned space from an company in the middle east.
$dayjob didn't have the in-house knowledge to know what was going on and as
they ne
Matt Hoppes writes:
> Had a previous employee or I discovered it on the network segment after
> we had some weird routing issues and had to get that cleaned up. I don't
> know why anyone would do that when there is tons of private IP space.
Excuse 1: "We'll never connect to the internet!"
Excus
On 17 December 2017 at 17:57, James Downs wrote:
> Unless there isn't.. I've worked at more than one company that had used up
> all the private space. Then you have the cases where some M&A causes
> overlapping IP space.
>
Or places like Ontario, where the government runs a registry service for
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:31 PM Robert Webb wrote:
> Will anyone comment on the practice of large enterprises using non RFC1918
> IP space that other entities are assigned by ARIN for internal routing?
>
> Just curious as to how wide spread this might be. I just heard of this
> happening with a l
> On Dec 17, 2017, at 14:33, Matt Hoppes
> wrote:
>
> Had a previous employee or I discovered it on the network segment after we
> had some weird routing issues and had to get that cleaned up. I don't know
> why anyone would do that when there is tons of private IP space.
Unless there isn't.
I worked alongside a company that used addresses assigned to the Syrian
govt for their "guest" network. They were a pretty large org, presumably
this was done to reduce risk - firewall rules, accidentally leaking guest
prefixes to their internal nets, or just straight-up simplicity. They were
in a
On 12/17/17 14:30, Robert Webb wrote:
> Will anyone comment on the practice of large enterprises using non RFC1918 IP
> space that other entities are assigned by ARIN for internal routing?
>
> Just curious as to how wide spread this might be. I just heard of this
> happening with a large ISP and
On 12/17/2017 04:30 PM, Robert Webb wrote:
Will anyone comment on the practice of large enterprises using non RFC1918 IP
space that other entities are assigned by ARIN for internal routing?
Just curious as to how wide spread this might be. I just heard of this
happening with a large ISP and
Had a previous employee or I discovered it on the network segment after we had
some weird routing issues and had to get that cleaned up. I don't know why
anyone would do that when there is tons of private IP space.
> On Dec 17, 2017, at 17:30, Robert Webb wrote:
>
> Will anyone comment on the
54 matches
Mail list logo
