David Conrad writes:
> Sorry, poorly worded. What I was wondering is there is an equivalent
> of KA9Q for IPv6.
But KA9Q is already certified for IPv6!
http://ipv6.he.net/certification/scoresheet.php?pass_name=ka9q
(found on http://www.ka9q.net/)
SCNR.
--
Simon.
On 5/26/11 11:23 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On May 26, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
Out of curiosity, is there an IPv6 stack for ham devices?
Well there's a loaded question.
...
I won't say that there aren't "ham devices" with an IP stack built in, but I
think we're talking about differ
On May 26, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> Yeah, so... the thing is there really are benefits to ham radio for
> the community. I 100% believe in that. And yes, there are a lot of
> neck beards but, honestly, look at some pictures from a NANOG meeting!
> ;)
>
Indeed, there is a club
On Thu, May 26, 2011, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> >Sorry, poorly worded. What I was wondering is there is an equivalent of
> >KA9Q for IPv6. I believe one of the comments we got back when we were
> >trying to reclaim 44/8 was that folks couldn't migrate to IPv6 because
> >no software was availab
Sorry, poorly worded. What I was wondering is there is an equivalent of
KA9Q for IPv6. I believe one of the comments we got back when we were
trying to reclaim 44/8 was that folks couldn't migrate to IPv6 because
no software was available...
We've come a little way since NOS. Linux has nati
On May 26, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, is there an IPv6 stack for ham devices?
> Well there's a loaded question.
...
> I won't say that there aren't "ham devices" with an IP stack built in, but I
> think we're talking about different layers here.
Sorry, poorly worde
On May 26, 2011 7:54 PM, "David Conrad" wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
> > There are some similarities between bands and ipv4 exhaustion, sure...
One
> > major difference is that those using ipv4 have the option of using ipv6,
>
> Out of curiosity, is there an IPv6 stac
On May 26, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
> There are some similarities between bands and ipv4 exhaustion, sure... One
> major difference is that those using ipv4 have the option of using ipv6,
Out of curiosity, is there an IPv6 stack for ham devices?
Regards,
-drc
On May 26, 2011 3:08 PM, "Jaime Magiera" wrote:
>
>
>
>from our cold dead hands.
>
>
> kd8mzn
>
I haven't read the entire thread, but since everyone with a call sign is
checking in...
There are some similarities between bands and ipv4 exhaustion, sure... One
major difference is that th
I still have my TNC here on the shelf... not much use for pushing bits, but
still handy to decode SCADA on 900mhz ;-)
-Jack Carrozzo
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) <
marcus.sa...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
> Since we are turning the clock backI launched my first AX.25
Since we are turning the clock backI launched my first AX.25 node in 1985
when I was living at Ft. Belvoir, VA. It was part of the 144 MHz "eastlink"
network that ran from Maine to Miami. Somewhere on a 5-1/2" floppy disk I have
an ASCII map of that network.
You really could hear the p
Yeah, so... the thing is there really are benefits to ham radio for
the community. I 100% believe in that. And yes, there are a lot of
neck beards but, honestly, look at some pictures from a NANOG meeting!
;)
I have been massively inactive in Amateur Radio for some time. I miss
it. However I
On May 26, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> I reckon it'd be about as hard to get back 44/8 as 11/8, but with more
> neckbeards. Anytime the fcc tries to reclaim frequencies all these guys come
> out of the wood work with the magic phrase 'emergency communications' and
> some congressmen g
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:54 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> The decentralized nature of administration of 44/8 made this somewhat
> intractable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the future
> address markets.
>
I reckon it'd be about as hard to get back 44/8 as 11/8, but with more
ne
And I just want to point out that a full /8 (worth $188,911,452.16 at the
benchmark rate as set by Microsoft/NNI) is dedicated to AMPR... :-)
When I was at IANA, we (where by "we" I mean Leo Vegoda :-)) looked at trying
to reclaim this /8 around the same time we were recovering the /8 dedicated
Used to run IP over AX.25 using KA9Q JNOS back in the day. HF at 300
baud simplex / half-duplex and VHF 144 Mhz at 1200 with similar
characteristics. I bought some 9600 baud gear at one point but never
got it all put together before moving on to the regular internet and
(somewhat unfortunately) n
On May 25, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, the FCC hasn't really allowed us to since it would be very
>> hard to produce useful bandwidth by today's standards within the bounds
>> of the spectrum we are a
Me personally? No, but I have used it. IP over 9600baud serial actually
isn't that bad for IRC when you're in the middle of the woods and all.
You want slow... read about winlink2000, the email/messaging system for hams
and emergency response. It's PSK on HF, meant to be reliable but if you get
mo
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> Nope, mostly HF (under 30mhz) gear at 300baud. Yes, you read that right.
You are running IP on this? And I though 1200 bauds half duplex was slow.
Nope, mostly HF (under 30mhz) gear at 300baud. Yes, you read that right.
I've seen a couple shorter hops of fractional T1 on 900mhz or 9600baud AX.25
on 144mhz, but there just aren't enough links to use line of site
frequencies.
Push mad bits,
-Jack Carrozzo
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Chr
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> You just need to move up in frequency a bit. My slowest ham-band link runs at
> 12 Mbps and my fastest at over 100 Mbps.
>
> Good reminder that I should renumber the IPv4 portion of that network to
> somewhere in 44.0.0.0/8 however.
What
On May 26, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>
> Unfortunately, the FCC hasn't really allowed us to since it would be very
> hard to produce useful bandwidth by today's standards within the bounds
> of the spectrum we are allowed to use and the channel separations we
> are allowed to use.
On May 25, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
>>NOTE WELL - Just because -you- (for values of you) see no value in
>>space assigned, does NOT give you the right to hijack said space
>>for your own purposes. Nor doe
On May 25, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michael Dillon
> wrote:
>> So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
>> use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
>> that do not carry any DOD traffi
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
>
> Indeed, arbitrary is arbitrary, be it ham radio operators or the DoD.
> I was trolling hams on the list there, my apologies. FWIW, my box
> 44.68.16.20 hasn't been up in well over a decade. Would have been
> nice if that packet r
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
> NOTE WELL - Just because -you- (for values of you) see no value in
> space assigned, does NOT give you the right to hijack said space
> for your own purposes. Nor does it look well for you to advocate
> hijacking someone els
Does it make sense that ham radio operators have
routable IP address space any longer?
Yes. Keep your mitts off 44!
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:43:24PM -0400, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michael Dillon
> wrote:
> > So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
> > use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
> > that do not carry a
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:43:24PM -0400, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michael Dillon
> wrote:
> > So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
> > use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
> > that do not carry a
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Wed May 25 13:44:21
> 2011
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:43:24 -0400
> Subject: Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
> From: Christopher Pilkington
> To: Michael Dillon
> Cc: NANOG
>
> O
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michael Dillon
wrote:
> So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
> use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
> that do not carry any DOD traffic and one could be that /8 from
> Softbank Japan, 126/8 if I recall i
On May 24, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Jeremy wrote:
> As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
> shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
Any? Debatable. Doing stuff like this has costs, but I suspect the folks at
Rogers aren't idiots and
--- wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote:
So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
Yes, so it turns IPv4 into such a big steaming pile that every one goes to IPv6
On 25 May 2011 04:22, Jeremy wrote:
> Please excuse my ignorance on this and note that I am not condoning the
> hijacking of IP address space.
>
> As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
> shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:45 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 22:22:20 CDT, Jeremy said:
>> As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
>> shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
>
> The types of network designers who are able to c
On Tue, 24 May 2011 22:22:20 CDT, Jeremy said:
> As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
> shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
The types of network designers who are able to cover *every single* little
detail needed to make
> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 00:22:36 -0400
>
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:14:02 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
>
> > Now, the onus is on the DoD to make its content available over unique
> > IPv6 space so that the Roger's customers can get to it using the
> > 6to4-PMT solution.
Please excuse my ignorance on this and note that I am not condoning the
hijacking of IP address space.
As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
These 7-NET address seem to be assigned to t
On May 24, 2011, at 9:29 06PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jimmy Hess"
>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:34 PM, wrote:
>>> I think those within the organization that deploy those vehicles or
>>> are Navy SEALs might sit at different lunch tables than the guys worr
- Original Message -
> From: "Jimmy Hess"
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:34 PM, wrote:
> > I think those within the organization that deploy those vehicles or
> > are Navy SEALs might sit at different lunch tables than the guys worried
> > about IP address collisions. ;-)
>
> The F/A-18 Ho
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:34 PM, wrote:
> I think those within the organization that deploy those vehicles or are Navy
> SEALs might sit at different lunch tables than the guys worried about IP
> address collisions. ;-)
The F/A-18 Hornets, F/A-22 Raptors are well, and good, but that's old
techn
: Nanog
Subject: Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Mark Farina
wrote:
> As of April 27th I have started to receive dhcp broadcast requests
> originating from the 7.0.0.0/8 network. Based on MAC addresses, it
> seems tha
On Tue, 24 May 2011 10:59:18 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
> >> Squatting resources from an organization that can deploy F/A-18
> >> Hornets, F/A-22 Raptors, Predator drones or Navy SEALs is probably bad
> >> to your health.
> I tend to doubt it. I'm pretty sure the DoD has the phone number to
> the FBI
On May 24, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>> Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers? Or has Rogers squatted on
>> this space due to exhaustion of their 10/8 use? We've seen other
>
>> Squatting resources from an organization that can deploy F/A-18
>> Hornets, F/A-22 Raptors, Predator d
> Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers? Or has Rogers squatted on
> this space due to exhaustion of their 10/8 use? We've seen other
> Squatting resources from an organization that can deploy F/A-18
> Hornets, F/A-22 Raptors, Predator drones or Navy SEALs is probably bad
> to your health.
>
>
On 5/24/11 10:07 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
There is no fixing the lack of IPv4, just more band-aids. IPv4 has
been scarce for the last 10 years that i have been in this industry.
I remember one of my first jobs was assigning IP addresses to
customers at an ISP and people on the other end of
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Paul Graydon wrote:
> On 5/24/2011 4:17 AM, Byron L. Hicks wrote:
>>
>> On 5/24/2011 9:13 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>>
>>> So you said NO, and what did they do about it ?
>>
>> It forced them to put in their own ISDN router, and they put static
>> routes on the point
On Tue, 24 May 2011 08:42:45 -0700
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> It's been a while since we fought a war with canada.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War
Should we start locking up our pigs?
Then there was the War of 1812 where both side claimed to have won thus
starting the age of spin doctoring.
On 5/24/2011 4:17 AM, Byron L. Hicks wrote:
On 5/24/2011 9:13 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
So you said NO, and what did they do about it ?
It forced them to put in their own ISDN router, and they put static
routes on the point of sale terminals that pointed the "borrowed" IP
space to the ISDN route
On May 24, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Mark Farina wrote:
>> As of April 27th I have started to receive dhcp broadcast requests
>> originating from the 7.0.0.0/8 network. Based on MAC addresses, it
>> seems that this is communication between the Roger
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Mark Farina wrote:
> As of April 27th I have started to receive dhcp broadcast requests
> originating from the 7.0.0.0/8 network. Based on MAC addresses, it
> seems that this is communication between the Rogers border/node
> hardware (MAC assigned to Cisco) and my
On 5/24/2011 9:13 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
> So you said NO, and what did they do about it ?
It forced them to put in their own ISDN router, and they put static
routes on the point of sale terminals that pointed the "borrowed" IP
space to the ISDN router. There was no way I was going to put this
> -Original Message-
> From: Byron L. Hicks [mailto:by...@byronhicks.com]
>
> I ran into this issue with a service provider that wanted to set up
> point of sale terminals on our campus. They were using DoD address
> space in their inside network, and they ordered ISDN connectivity from
On 5/23/2011 10:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Diluted IPv4 is one thing. Hijacking space allocated to another entity
> is another. As long as they keep it contained within their network,
> it's pretty much up to them to break their own environment however
> they see fit, but, if they start leaking 7
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> However, many networks take active steps to assure that external parties
> cannot disrupt their internal network. Anyone on this list with
And many networks have implemented BCP38 and appropriate prefix
filters + as path filters with
On May 23, 2011, at 9:09 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Owen,
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I think there are a number of other options available to them.
>
>
> Out of curiosity, what would these options be?
>
As previously mentioned:
1. Obtain RIR space
>Which they should be ready to do already, since didn't the US Govt.
>mandate IPv6 support sometime last century? ;)
Yeah, it runs over GOSIP.
R's,
John
On May 23, 2011 9:37 PM, "Jimmy Hess" wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
> > If they do, any Rogers customer who wants to talk to it is screwed.
Whether they have a 7 addy or not, Rogers' routers will not let the packet
leave Rogers' borders.
>
> That could de
On May 24, 2011, at 12:36 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
> wrote:
>> If they do, any Rogers customer who wants to talk to it is screwed. Whether
>> they have a 7 addy or not, Rogers' routers will not let the packet leave
>> Rogers' borders.
>
> Th
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> If they do, any Rogers customer who wants to talk to it is screwed. Whether
> they have a 7 addy or not, Rogers' routers will not let the packet leave
> Rogers' borders.
That could depend on whether Rogers' border routers are adequa
In message <17520.1306210956@localhost>, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:14:02 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
>
> > Now, the onus is on the DoD to make its content available over unique
> > IPv6 space so that the Roger's customers can get to it using the
> > 6to4-PMT solution.
In message , Cameron Byrne
writes:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wro=
> te:
> > On May 24, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't think they have to hijack space from DoD. I think there a
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:22 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:14:02 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
>
>> Now, the onus is on the DoD to make its content available over unique
>> IPv6 space so that the Roger's customers can get to it using the
>> 6to4-PMT solution. There is always a solution.
>
> Whi
On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:14:02 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
> Now, the onus is on the DoD to make its content available over unique
> IPv6 space so that the Roger's customers can get to it using the
> 6to4-PMT solution. There is always a solution.
Which they should be ready to do already, since didn't
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On May 24, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think they have to hijack space from DoD. I think there are a
>>> number of other options available to them.
Owen,
On May 23, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think there are a number of other options available to them.
Out of curiosity, what would these options be?
Regards,
-drc
On May 24, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> I don't think they have to hijack space from DoD. I think there are a
>> number of other options available to them. They might cost more, but,
>> they also come with somewhat lower
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> I don't think they have to hijack space from DoD. I think there are a
> number of other options available to them. They might cost more, but,
> they also come with somewhat lower risks
the good thing is 7 exists on networks that will never
>
> This is the business reality of the IPv4-scarce era. Diluted IPv4 is
> not new to many places and will become common in many more places.
> Furthermore, it is a calculated business risk. IPv4 services
> will/have become the 2nd class (NAT444...) services as IPv6 ascends
> to first class sta
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Joel Jaeggli
> write
> s:
>>
>> On May 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >=20
>> > On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad wrote:
>> >=20
>> >> On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM,
In message , Joel Jaeggli write
s:
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >=20
> >=20
> > Sent from my iPad
> >=20
> > On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad wrote:
> >=20
> >> On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
> >>> Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers?
>
On May 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
>>> Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers?
>>
>> Unlikely, although it might be an interesting case of testing
Sent from my iPad
On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad wrote:
> On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
>> Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers?
>
> Unlikely, although it might be an interesting case of testing ARIN's transfer
> policy if it was the case :-).
>
>> Or has Rog
On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
> Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers?
Unlikely, although it might be an interesting case of testing ARIN's transfer
policy if it was the case :-).
> Or has Rogers squatted on this space due to exhaustion of their 10/8 use?
Probably. I've he
As of April 27th I have started to receive dhcp broadcast requests
originating from the 7.0.0.0/8 network. Based on MAC addresses, it
seems that this is communication between the Rogers border/node
hardware (MAC assigned to Cisco) and my Motorola cable modem.
Is the DoD releasing this range to Rog
75 matches
Mail list logo
