On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
> On May 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/22/14 8:04 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> In his really useful listing of content providers' IPv6 support,
On May 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 5/22/14 8:04 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> In his really useful listing of content providers' IPv6 support,
>> https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/ Eric Vynck
On 5/22/14 9:41 PM, "Martin Hannigan" wrote:
>
>
>My job isn't to increase v6. It's to make sure we can serve traffic over
>protocols we are asked to. We are dual stacked which means our customers
>are.
I'm not going to tell you what your job is.
I'm curious, though, whether your customers spec
On 23 May 2014, at 3:29 pm, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Julien Goodwin
> wrote:
>> On 23/05/14 11:21, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>> You can't cater to everyones broken network. I can't reach 1.1.1.1 from
>>> here either, but sometimes when I travel I can, even with
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> On 23/05/14 11:21, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> You can't cater to everyones broken network. I can't reach 1.1.1.1 from
>> here either, but sometimes when I travel I can, even with TTL=1. At some
>> point folks have to fix what's broken.
>
> 1.
On 23/05/14 11:21, Jared Mauch wrote:
> You can't cater to everyones broken network. I can't reach 1.1.1.1 from here
> either, but sometimes when I travel I can, even with TTL=1. At some point
> folks have to fix what's broken.
1.1.1.1 is not private IP space.
BGP routing table entry for 1.1.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> On 5/22/14 8:04 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
> wrote:
>
> >On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
> >
> >>On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By wrote:
> >>
> >>> Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
> >>
> >>I suspect this would go up s
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Rubens Kuhl
> >
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > Jared,
>> >
>> > Akamai has been v6 enabled for years. Customers have choices and know
>> best.
>> >
>> > Isn't your network still offering both as customer choices? :-)
>
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jared,
> >
> > Akamai has been v6 enabled for years. Customers have choices and know
> best.
> >
> > Isn't your network still offering both as customer choices? :-)
> >
>
> Making new customers dual-stack by default for the last two years
>
>
> Jared,
>
> Akamai has been v6 enabled for years. Customers have choices and know best.
>
> Isn't your network still offering both as customer choices? :-)
>
Making new customers dual-stack by default for the last two years would
have gone far in increasing IPv6, unless Akamai is only losing
On May 22, 2014, at 9:14 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
> >
> >> On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By wrote:
> >>
> >>> Verizon Wirele
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason <
> jason_living...@cable.comcast.com > wrote:
>
> > On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" >
> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 pene
Once upon a time, Royce Williams said:
> I've triggered Google's CAPTCHA multiple times at home, just from
> rapidly adding and removing search terms, in a couple of different
> tabs, after driving down a hundred results or so.
I tend to look up docs and such from a screen session on my VPS using
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Derek Andrew wrote:
> As others have said, Google's abuse systems are smart enough to understand
> NAT and proxies, and won't block on request volume alone. When we
> automatically apply a block, we'll generally offer a captcha to give
> innocent users a workaroun
On 5/22/14 8:04 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
wrote:
>On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>
>>On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By wrote:
>>
>>> Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
>>
>>I suspect this would go up significantly if Twitter and Instagram would
>>IPv6 enable their services.
As others have said, Google's abuse systems are smart enough to understand
NAT and proxies, and won't block on request volume alone. When we
automatically apply a block, we'll generally offer a captcha to give
innocent users a workaround and limit the annoyance until the abuse stops
and the block
On 14-05-22 08:55 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> Coke Classic managed to outlast NewCoke... pattern repeating?
Coke Classic changed as well.
NAT44: the high-fructose corn syrup of IPv4.
M.
--
Michael Brown| The true sysadmin does not adjust his behaviour
Systems Administrator|
On 22May2014Thursday, at 5:55, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> I remind vendors when I talk to them, "IPv6 first, then IP classic(tm)".
>
> Coke Classic managed to outlast NewCoke... pattern repeating?
its classic for a reason….
/bill
Don't even joke about that, I can't handle another decade of NAT.
--
Josh
On 5/22/14, 8:55 AM, "Christopher Morrow" wrote:
>On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Jared Mauch
>wrote:
>> I remind vendors when I talk to them, "IPv6 first, then IP
>>classic(tm)".
>
>Coke Classic managed to outlast
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I remind vendors when I talk to them, "IPv6 first, then IP classic(tm)".
Coke Classic managed to outlast NewCoke... pattern repeating?
On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason
wrote:
> On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>
>> On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By wrote:
>>
>>> Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
>>
>> I suspect this would go up significantly if Twitter and Instagram would
>> IPv6 enable th
On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
>> Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
>
>I suspect this would go up significantly if Twitter and Instagram would
>IPv6 enable their services. Same for pintarest.
+1
We naturally focus a lot on netwo
On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By wrote:
> Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
I suspect this would go up significantly if Twitter and Instagram would IPv6
enable their services. Same for pintarest.
Other folks like bit.ly have briefly toyed with IPv6, and with the
helpdesk.test-ip
In message <005701cf753a$97d6e670$c784b350$@wicks.co.nz>, "Tony Wicks" writes:
> >
> >On May 20, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Pui Edylie wrote:
> >
> >The absolute best solution is to deploy IPv6 and deprecate NAT. If you're
> >looking for an IPv4-only solution, I don't have a good answer for you.
>
> Depl
On May 21, 2014 4:17 PM, "Ca By" wrote:
>
>
> On May 21, 2014 4:04 PM, wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:21:12 +1200, "Tony Wicks" said:
> >
> > > Deploy v6... yes its very easy to replace every CPE device that every
home
> > > user has... really ? come on, back in the real world that is just
On May 21, 2014 4:04 PM, wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:21:12 +1200, "Tony Wicks" said:
>
> > Deploy v6... yes its very easy to replace every CPE device that every
home
> > user has... really ? come on, back in the real world that is just not
going
> > to happen until by default every CPE devic
On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:21:12 +1200, "Tony Wicks" said:
> Deploy v6... yes its very easy to replace every CPE device that every home
> user has... really ? come on, back in the real world that is just not going
> to happen until by default every CPE device has the capability as default.
> Dual stac
On 5/21/2014 4:21 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
Deploy v6... yes its very easy ...
The system is fully automated, and if you carefully follow instructions,
life will be wonderful and nothing can possibly go wronand
nothing can possibly go wronand nothing can possibly go
wronand nothing can possib
>
>On May 20, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Pui Edylie wrote:
>
>The absolute best solution is to deploy IPv6 and deprecate NAT. If you're
looking for an IPv4-only solution, I don't have a good answer for you.
Deploy v6... yes its very easy to replace every CPE device that every home
user has... really ? com
This works out especially well if you are using VOIP behind said NAT. ;-)
Owen
On May 20, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Kevin Kadow wrote:
> If at all possible, consider using a NAT pool instead of translating
> all outbound web traffic to a single IP address. When I ran
> Tribune's network (with about
On May 20, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Pui Edylie wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our Natted
> IP from time to time as it suspect it as a bot.
>
> Is there any official channel from Google which we could work with them for
> resolution?
>
>
Deploy IPv6. This is the solution to this problem. Google supports
IPv6 on all their services AFAIK.
Mark
In message <537b64f7.5020...@edylie.net>, Pui Edylie writes:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our
> Natted IP from time to time as it
>Some of the networks I work with do the "everything behind NAT" thing and
get bitten by this. Using a pool of addresses helps but... This is only
going to get more painful with more people doing >"Carrier Grade"
>NAT...
I Run CGN with tens of thousands of broadband users being translated behind
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:35:56AM -0400, Harald Koch wrote:
>
> Might help if all your hosts have their own IPv6 addresses
That was meant to be implied... But...
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:10:56AM -0600, Derek Andrew wrote:
> They take out our campus, both IPv4 and IPv6.
That's interesting, I
If at all possible, consider using a NAT pool instead of translating
all outbound web traffic to a single IP address. When I ran
Tribune's network (with about 15K internal client IPs), we were
blacklisted by Google several times due to high query volumes. In the
end I built a pair of /24 NAT poo
Their determination is based on the type of search traffic more than the
volume. I had some success using squid to proxy through to them and reduce the
overall number of complex queries.
On May 20, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Derek Andrew wrote:
> They take out our campus, both IPv4 and IPv6.
>
> Al
They take out our campus, both IPv4 and IPv6.
All hailing attempts fail.
Good luck.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Pui Edylie wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our
> Natted IP from time to time as it suspect it as a bot.
>
> Is the
On 20 May 2014 10:27, William Waites wrote:
> IPv6?
>
Might help if all your hosts have their own IPv6 addresses - doesn't help
if you run an http proxy. Google blacklists my (personal) IPv6 proxy at
least once a month.
--
Harald
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:21:43PM +0800, Pui Edylie wrote:
>
> May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our
> Natted IP from time to time as it suspect it as a bot.
IPv6?
39 matches
Mail list logo
