On Monday 29 March 2010 07:17:28 pm Doug Barton wrote:
> However, none of that is relevant to the fact that a change IS coming,
> whether you're ready for it or not. The questions are, what will the
> change(s) be, how soon, and how will it/they affect me?
[snip]
> So the question is not, "Can I af
On 03/26/10 14:25, Lamar Owen wrote:
> While my hypothetical answer was intentionally worst-case, with just-barely-
> too-old hypothetical hardware being mentioned, in reality my situation is
> dealing with in some cases much older equipment. I could go into detail, but
> you guys don't want to
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:08:52PM +0200, Simon Leinen wrote:
> bmanning writes:
> > A few years ago I attended a SIGCOM mtg and was on a pannel talking
> > about IPv6. One of the pannelests was XingLi of CERN, who presented
>
> s/CERN/CERNET/ - credit where credit is due.
well... yes.
bmanning writes:
> A few years ago I attended a SIGCOM mtg and was on a pannel talking
> about IPv6. One of the pannelests was XingLi of CERN, who presented
s/CERN/CERNET/ - credit where credit is due.
> their v4/v6 translator code that supports over 400,000 chinese
> academics on native IPv6 -
Thanks for sharing. I think your/our circumstances are shared by many folks who
have a network to run, budgets to stck to, and technology to adopt. Not
everyone
has a massive core network with 10s of thousands of downstream clients.
A few years ago I attended a SIGCOM mtg and was on a pannel t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings Owen,
The only problem is that there will be a number of devices that the
eyeballs like that won't ever see an IPv6 packet (specifically thinking about
the CE devices in the home). As such, it won't be IPv6 only, it will be
dual-
Dave,
It's clear we disagree about what will happen in an obviously
unpredictable future. I think that eyeball networks will deploy IPv6
rapidly due to the high costs of attempting to continue to hack IPv4.
You believe that something else will happen. In time, we will see
which of us turns
On Friday 26 March 2010 02:10:45 pm Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <201003261157.23601.lo...@pari.edu>, Lamar Owen writes:
> > "Hey, great presentation. Compelling arguments. But I have one
> > question: will our existing gear that's not yet fully depreciated handle
> > it? No?
> What percen
On Friday 26 March 2010 01:31:33 pm Owen DeLong wrote:
> The other key point to take away... If your engineer is telling you that
> your ISP isn't ready yet, it's time for you to give your engineer your
> backing at telling the ISP that IPv6 is a requirement for contract
> renewal.
At least right
On 3/26/2010 1:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> You should ask your server guy how he plans to talk to your core
> stakeholders when they can't get IPv4 any more.
Then, at that time, both he and his key stakeholders will experience
pain while they
In message <201003261157.23601.lo...@pari.edu>, Lamar Owen writes:
> On Wednesday 10 March 2010 09:46:19 pm Jim Burwell wrote:
> > On 3/10/2010 16:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > The target really needs to be the CxOs and the management,
> > > especially in places where there is content facing the ge
On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday 10 March 2010 09:46:19 pm Jim Burwell wrote:
On 3/10/2010 16:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
The target really needs to be the CxOs and the management,
especially in places where there is content facing the general
public. Fortunately, Googl
On Wednesday 10 March 2010 09:46:19 pm Jim Burwell wrote:
> On 3/10/2010 16:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > The target really needs to be the CxOs and the management,
> > especially in places where there is content facing the general
> > public. Fortunately, Google, Yahoo, Netflix, etc. get it and have
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 10:59:31 pm Mark Newton wrote:
> How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network?
90% of the network equipment here is over ten years old, and still trucking.
No plans to replace what is still working, as long as we have spares in stock,
and until we get
On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:14 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
>>> it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least,
>> How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network?
>> Ten years ago we were routing appletalk and IPX. Still doing that now?
>
> Ten years ago I was still
>> it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least,
> How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network?
> Ten years ago we were routing appletalk and IPX. Still doing that now?
Ten years ago I was still telling a few customers that Novell Netware had
supported
> when will you turn off -all- IPv4 in your network?
> no snmp/aaa, no syslog, no radius, no licensed s/w keyed to a v4
> address,
> no need to keep logs for leos' (whats the data retention law in your
> jurisdiction?)
> etc...
The same day that we stop using RS-232C
On 3/23/2010 10:59 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> On 24/03/2010, at 4:10 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least,
>>
> How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network?
>
Are you kidding? I'm in state education t
don't think we can directly compare it to AppleTalk and IPX.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Mark Newton [mailto:new...@internode.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:00 PM
To: Christopher Morrow
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IP4 Space
On 24/03/2010, at 4:10 AM, Christopher Morrow
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:35:38AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> Only until v4 becomes more expensive (using whatever metric matters to
> >> you) than v6.
> >
> > I have v4, it's not going to be anymore expensive than it is today for
> > me... for new folks sure, but I've got mine.
> >
> If
>
> apples and oranges.
>
When did novell turn orange? I thought they were red. ;-)
>> I'd expect that v4 will still exist in legacy form behind firewalls,
>> but I think its deprecation on the public internet will happen a lot
>> faster than anyone expects.
>
> maybe you're right, but... I do
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 24/03/2010, at 4:10 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least,
>
> How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network?
it's not my network anymore (or not the one
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:24:45PM +1030, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 24/03/2010, at 1:46 PM, wrote:
>
> >
> > tell me Mark,
> >
> > when will you turn off -all- IPv4 in your network?
>
> I don't imagine there'll be a date as such; We'll just enable
> IPv6 versions of the services you've m
On 24/03/2010, at 1:46 PM, wrote:
>
> tell me Mark,
>
> when will you turn off -all- IPv4 in your network?
I don't imagine there'll be a date as such; We'll just enable
IPv6 versions of the services you've mentioned on equipment which
supports it, and note that over time the number of
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> Only until v4 becomes more expensive (using whatever metric matters to
> you) than v6.
>
> After you pass that tipping point, v4 deployment will stop dead.
Mark,
You offer an accurate but incomplete assessment. IPv4 allocation's
upcoming tra
tell me Mark,
when will you turn off -all- IPv4 in your network?
no snmp/aaa, no syslog, no radius, no licensed s/w keyed to a v4
address,
no need to keep logs for leos' (whats the data retention law in your
jurisdiction?)
etc...
simple switching of dat
On 24/03/2010, at 4:10 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least,
How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network?
Ten years ago we were routing appletalk and IPX. Still doing that
now?
Ten years ago companies were s
On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> With 30,000 active AS right now, assuming an average of 2 instead of 9.5,
You appear to be assuming ISPs (like the ones that have received /18s, /19s,
/20s, etc.) aren't going to deaggregate for traffic engineering purposes. Or
do I misundersta
On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I think that the additive nature of the IPv6/IPv4 routing tables will be the
>> driving factor for deprecation of IPv4 pretty quickly once IPv6 starts to
>> reach critical mass.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think that the additive nature of the IPv6/IPv4 routing tables will be the
> driving factor for deprecation of IPv4 pretty quickly once IPv6 starts to
> reach critical mass. The problem is that we are so early on the IPv6
> adoption curve
On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:17 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less
expensive.
- Original Message
From: Mark Newton
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 5:27:27 AM
Subject: Re: IP4 Space
On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less expensive.
> As a result, I suspect
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:17 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less
expensiv
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>> On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less
>>> expensive. As a result, I suspect there will be more IPv6 small multih
On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less
>> expensive. As a result, I suspect there will be more IPv6 small multihomers.
>> That's generally a good thing.
>
> Puz
On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less expensive.
> As a result, I suspect there will be more IPv6 small multihomers.
> That's generally a good thing.
Puzzled: How does the IPv6 routing table get smaller?
There's cu
On Mar 22, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 6:53 PM, Stan Barber wrote:
>
>> In this case, I am talking about an IPv6<->IPv6 NAT analogue to the current
>> IPv4<->IPv4 NAT that is widely used with residential Internet service
>> delivery today.
>>
>> I believe th
On Mar 22, 2010, at 6:53 PM, Stan Barber wrote:
> In this case, I am talking about an IPv6<->IPv6 NAT analogue to the current
> IPv4<->IPv4 NAT that is widely used with residential Internet service
> delivery today.
>
> I believe that with IPv6 having much larger pool of addresses and each
>
On 19/03/2010, at 4:07 AM, Stan Barber wrote:
> 1. Almost all home users (not businesses) that are connected to the Internet
> today via IPv4 are behind some kind of NAT box. In some cases, two NATs (one
> provided by the home user's router and one provided by some kind of ISP).
> There is no n
On Mar 22, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Stan Barber wrote:
>> In this case, I am talking about an IPv6<->IPv6 NAT analogue to the current
>> IPv4<->IPv4
>> NAT that is widely used with residential Internet service delivery today.
>
> I don't ne
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Simon Perreault
wrote:
> On 2010-03-22 17:42, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> the current ietf draft for 'simple
>> cpe security' (draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09.txt) is
>> potentially calling for some measures like nat, not nat today but...
>
> This is be
On 2010-03-22 17:42, Christopher Morrow wrote:
the current ietf draft for 'simple
cpe security' (draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09.txt) is
potentially calling for some measures like nat, not nat today but...
This is being reversed as we speak.
Simon
--
NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Stan Barber wrote:
> In this case, I am talking about an IPv6<->IPv6 NAT analogue to the current
> IPv4<->IPv4
> NAT that is widely used with residential Internet service delivery today.
I don't necessarily see 6-6 nat being used as 4-4 is today, but I do
think y
In this case, I am talking about an IPv6<->IPv6 NAT analogue to the current
IPv4<->IPv4 NAT that is widely used with residential Internet service delivery
today.
I believe that with IPv6 having much larger pool of addresses and each
residential customer getting a large chunk of addresses will m
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Stan Barber wrote:
> Ok. Let's get back to some basics to be sure we are talking about the same
> things.
>
> First, do you believe that a residential customer of an ISP will get an IPv6
> /56 assigned for use in their home? Do
> you believe that residential cus
Ok. Let's get back to some basics to be sure we are talking about the same
things.
First, do you believe that a residential customer of an ISP will get an IPv6
/56 assigned for use in their home? Do you believe that residential customer
will often choose to multihome using that prefix? Do you
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Joel made a remarkable assertion
>> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed
>> for multihoming, would go down under IPv6. I wondered about his
>> reasoning. Stan then offered the surprising clarification that a
>> re
I was not trying to say there would be a reduction in multihoming. I was trying
to say that the rate of increase in non-NATed single-homing would increase
faster than multihoming. I guess I was not very clear.
Here is the basis for my assumptions since they are not clear:
1. Almost all home use
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:42:50AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Does it make sense/work to do this for internal operations even if our
> > outside connections are IPv4 only (forget about tunneling). Even more
> > mundane questions like how to deal with IPv4 only networked printers
> > when ev
In message <2d6a9f6f1003111016t16ddc73frc4a430e220891...@mail.gmail.com>, Bill
Bogstad writes:
> I fall into this category, but I'm trying to get better. This may be
> OT for this forum, but as someone whose network admin hat has mostly
> been at the LAN/MAN level, I'm less concerned about IPv6
On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Daniel Senie wrote:
Well, it's like this... there's still no native IPv6 connectivity
in most data centers, residences, >businesses or wireless, most
vendors of networking equipment have not had a lot of mi
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Daniel Senie wrote:
> Well, it's like this... there's still no native IPv6 connectivity in most
> data centers, residences, >businesses or wireless, most vendors of networking
> equipment have not had a lot of mileage on >their IPv6 code if they even have
> it
Well, it's like this... there's still no native IPv6 connectivity in most data
centers, residences, businesses or wireless, most vendors of networking
equipment have not had a lot of mileage on their IPv6 code if they even have it
fully working, and, frankly, the IPv6 community has been predicti
On 3/10/2010 16:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, only personally experienced pain is going to push a lot of these
>> sorts of people into ipv6. By pain, I mean things such as not being
>> able to deploy their new service (web site, email server, VPN box,
>> whatever) on the internet due to lack
IMHO, only personally experienced pain is going to push a lot of these
sorts of people into ipv6. By pain, I mean things such as not being
able to deploy their new service (web site, email server, VPN box,
whatever) on the internet due to lack of ipv4 addresses, having to
implement double NAT, C
On 3/10/2010 05:06, Andy Koch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:55, Jens Link wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong writes:
>>
>>
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
>>> acceptance<--- My dual-stacked network and I are here.
>>>
>> So am I. But most IT peop
On Mar 10, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Jens Link wrote:
> Owen DeLong writes:
>
>> I spend much of my time talking to groups of people about this. I
>> have managed to get several members of such groups from denial to
>> bargaining and sometimes eve depression in a single session.
>
> I did several pre
Owen DeLong writes:
> I spend much of my time talking to groups of people about this. I
> have managed to get several members of such groups from denial to
> bargaining and sometimes eve depression in a single session.
I did several presentations about IPv6 basics myself and there was very
posi
On Mar 10, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Jens Link wrote:
> Owen DeLong writes:
>
>>> denial
>>> anger
>>> bargaining
>>> depression
>> acceptance<--- My dual-stacked network and I are here.
>
> So am I. But most IT people I talk to are still at the denial phase. And
True
> there is not much one can
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:55, Jens Link wrote:
> Owen DeLong writes:
>
>>> denial
>>> anger
>>> bargaining
>>> depression
>> acceptance <--- My dual-stacked network and I are here.
>
> So am I. But most IT people I talk to are still at the denial phase. And
> there is not much one can do abou
Owen DeLong writes:
>> denial
>> anger
>> bargaining
>> depression
> acceptance<--- My dual-stacked network and I are here.
So am I. But most IT people I talk to are still at the denial phase. And
there is not much one can do about it.
Jens, 566 days to go
--
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/03/2010 16:52, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Shon Elliott wrote:
>
>> I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to
>> say, is really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where
>
> Hi Shon. B
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Shon Elliott wrote:
I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to
say, is really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where
Hi Shon. But we have a system in place which allows non-technical people
to ignore IP addresses entirely.
Up
On 07/03/2010, at 4:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I expect that once we all work out that we can use SP-NAT to turn "dynamic
>> IPv4 addresses" into "shared dynamic IPv4 addresses," we'll have enough
>> spare IPv4 addresses for much of the foreseeable future.
>>
> Ew... The more I hear people
On Mar 7, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2010-03-07 14:21 +0800), Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> While it is more complete than many other countries, there are still rural
>> areas where it is not, and, the relatively high churn rate in competitive
>> markets will actually still lead to a nee
On 06/03/2010 21:32, Shon Elliott wrote:
> I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is
> really tough to remember and understand for most people.
Roll out DNS before you roll out v6 then.
> basically, you need technical knowledge to even understand how the IP ad
* Thomas Magill:
> 1.Why don't providers use /31 addresses for P2P links? This
> works fine per rfc 3021 but nobody seems to believe it or use it. Are
> there any major manufacturers out there that do not support it?
Not all vendors support it, especially not over Ethernet.
> 2.
On (2010-03-07 14:21 +0800), Owen DeLong wrote:
> While it is more complete than many other countries, there are still rural
> areas where it is not, and, the relatively high churn rate in competitive
> markets will actually still lead to a need for increasing address allocations
> and assignments
On (2010-03-07 08:41 +1100), Mark Andrews wrote:
> Not implementing IPv6 will start to lose them business soon as they
> won't be able to reach IPv6 only sites. Not quite yet but soon. While
> all the services that there customers want to reach are available over
> IPv4 they will be fine. Once
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:07:47 +0800, Owen DeLong said:
> Interesting way of thinking about it. I suspect that rather than pay your
> premium prices, the customers you just degraded in order to charge
> them more for the service they had will look to your competitors for
> better service.
I suspec
On Mar 7, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Shon Elliott wrote:
> My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it.
>
> I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is
> really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four
> number
> dotted quad was
On Mar 7, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
>> have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
>> list has already examined how polluted the remaining
On Mar 6, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better
In message <4b92c9f7.4080...@unwiredbb.com>, Shon Elliott writes:
> My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it.
>
> I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is
> really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four numb
> er
On 3/6/10 1:32 PM, Shon Elliott wrote:
> My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it.
>
> I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is
> really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four
> number
> dotted quad was easy to re
In message <20100306184958.ga17...@mx.ytti.net>, Saku Ytti writes:
> On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> > Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
> > have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
> > list has already examined ho
My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it.
I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is
really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four number
dotted quad was easy to remember, an IPv6 address.. not so much. I wished they
On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
> have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
> list has already examined how polluted the remaining free IPv4 blocks
> are ... and as others have pointed
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Dan White wrote:
> On 06/03/10 23:36 +1030, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>> On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
On 06/03/10 23:36 +1030, Mark Newton wrote:
On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
toward
On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
> On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
>>> trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
>>> toward dual-stack ;)
>>>
>>> Nice.
>>>
On 06/03/2010, at 1:06 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>> On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll
>>> quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space w
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:23:59AM +0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > IVI is stateless, which means it requires 1 to 1 IPv4 to IPv6 mapping.
> > NAT64 allows multiplexing.
> >
> I didn't fully understand it, but, Ma Yan presented IVI with multiplexing
> in a stateless environment at APNIC 29.
>
>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:08:50 EST, David Conrad said:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Ah, but, that assumes that the need is located in a similar part of the
> > network
> > to the reclamation, or, that the point of reclamation can be sufficiently
> > motivated
> > to do so by
On Mar 6, 2010, at 6:08 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> The interesting question is at what point _can_ you do what you want
>>> without IPv4. It seems obvious that that point will be after the IPv4 free
>>> pool is exhausted, and as such, allocated
On 3/5/2010 06:38, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> There is one of other catch with NAT64 and IPv6-only. It breaks
> communications with IPv4 literals. Now, you might says that IPv4
> literals in URLs are very seldom well ... have a look at how
> Akamai does a lot of their streaming. I just hope it do
On 03/05/2010 01:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> If this is done right, direct assignment holders and ISPs are
>> issued sufficiently large prefixes such that the prefix count per
>> entity remains small.
>
> This sort of assumes Internet connecti
On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The interesting question is at what point _can_ you do what you want without
>> IPv4. It seems obvious that that point will be after the IPv4 free pool is
>> exhausted, and as such, allocated-but-not-efficiently-used addresses will
>> likely bec
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> there is a real danger here ... wholesale adoption of a
>> translation technology, esp one that is integrated into
>> the network kind of ensures that it will never get pulled out -
>> or that the enduser will have a
On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> If this is done right, direct assignment holders and ISPs are issued
> sufficiently large prefixes such that the prefix count per entity
> remains small.
This sort of assumes Internet connectivity models of today, specifically that
most address a
On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:06 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:
>> According to ARIN, _IF_ you meet their requirements for obtaining an
> IPv4
>> block, then, you ALSO automatically meet their requirements for
> obtaining
>> an IPv6 block.
>
> Thank you for the clarification. I am obviously in the very early
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:23:59AM +0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Owen (who is very glad these are technologies OTHER people will use)
>
:) My point was not really to push a particular technology, although
we believe ds-lite is worth looking at or ISC wouldn't have
implemented and released it. (A
>
> IVI is stateless, which means it requires 1 to 1 IPv4 to IPv6 mapping.
> NAT64 allows multiplexing.
>
I didn't fully understand it, but, Ma Yan presented IVI with multiplexing
in a stateless environment at APNIC 29.
Owen (who is very glad these are technologies OTHER people will use)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Jeff McAdams said:
>> Both my previous and current employer, in switching from IPv4 to IPv6
>> will drop from 7 and 4 advertisements (fully aggregated) to 1. I don't
>> anticipate either ever having needs larger than the sin
On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:36 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>> On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll
>>> quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space
>
> there is a real danger here ... wholesale adoption of a
> translation technology, esp one that is integrated into
> the network kind of ensures that it will never get pulled out -
> or that the enduser will have a devil of a time routing around
> it when it no lo
If I can try to re-rail the train of this discussion a bit...
1. Yes, dual-stacking may require as many IPv4 addresses as IPv6
addresses. However, in this case, I was referring to dual-stacking
as meaning adding IPv6 capabilities to your existing IPv4 hosts and
infras
On Mar 5, 2010, at 11:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 05:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Joel made a remarkable assertion
>>> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed
>>> for multihoming, would go do
>According to ARIN, _IF_ you meet their requirements for obtaining an
IPv4
>block, then, you ALSO automatically meet their requirements for
obtaining
>an IPv6 block.
Thank you for the clarification. I am obviously in the very early stage
of planning IPv6 for our company with hopes of at least hav
On Mar 6, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:
>> That brings a question to mind. As an ISP, with IPv4, end sites that
>> are multihoming can justify a /24 from us (or another upstream) and
>> announce it through multiple providers. With IPv6, are they supposed
> to
>> get their block from AR
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
