On 4/7/13 9:45 PM, "Huasong Zhou" wrote:
>We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And by
>the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
Sure they can. And I'm sure if you checked the WAN interface of the device
it has a public IPv4 address.
- Jason
On 4/8/13 9:23 PM, "Seth Mattinen" wrote:
>On 4/8/13 5:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:45 , Huasong Zhou wrote:
>>
>>> We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And
>>>by the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
>>>
>>
>> Some do
Quoting:
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:31:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism
through IPv6
At the end (IPv6 at home
On 9-4-2013 1:10, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Huasong Zhou"
>
>> We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And
>> by the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
>
> I have seen consumer NAT routers assign addresses in all thr
Huasong Zhou writes:
> We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly.
OK, so the NAT is taking place in the router you got from Comcast, not
in Carrier Grade NAT in Comcast's network. A fine distinction but an
important one. The external address of your router is (a) globa
uch past about 5 years, maybe 10 if we're really unlucky.
Of course. :)
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 12:01 AM
To: Rajiv Asati
Cc: Fabien Delmotte , nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
>On Apr 8, 2013, at
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> For ex, there are numerous android apps that are not supported
> on many android devices. :=(
>
I think this is actually up to the developer of the APP not the hardware
nor OS manufacturer.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong
> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:52 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati
> Cc: Fabien Delmotte , nanog list
> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:54 , Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
&
ril 8, 2013 8:52 PM
To: Rajiv Asati
Cc: Fabien Delmotte , nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
>On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:54 , Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>
>>
>> Like you, I would like to be optimistic about many v4-only apps and
>> v4-only devices becom
g this, suffice to say.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Tom Taylor
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:51 PM
To: Rajiv Asati
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP,
>then if you
On 4/8/13 5:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:45 , Huasong Zhou wrote:
>
>> We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And by
>> the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
>>
>
> Some do.
>
AT&T U-verse used to have 10.0.0.0/8 as an opt
On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:45 , Huasong Zhou wrote:
> We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And by the
> way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
>
Some do.
Owen
> Joe
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 9:11 PM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote
On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:54 , Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>
> Like you, I would like to be optimistic about many v4-only apps and
> v4-only devices becoming dual-stack sooner than later.
>
> But knowing that a significant (50%+) of android devices may not support
> IPv6 (just like my brand new Sa
prefix to mean something for MAP. That's it. Attached is a
screenshot to illustrate this very point.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Tom Taylor
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:48 PM
To: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
In what sense do you mea
On Apr 8, 2013, at 07:58 , joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/8/13 7:23 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>> BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a "whole" IPv4
>>> address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
>>> need for [srcpo
- Original Message -
> From: "Huasong Zhou"
> We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And
> by the way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
I have seen consumer NAT routers assign addresses in all three RFC1918
blocks, though I couldn't cite particu
Chris,
Your points are well taken.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:57 PM
To: Rajiv Asati
Cc: Chuck Anderson , nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Rajiv A
We got this modem and router all in one box from Comcast directly. And by the
way, home use routers don't assign 10.0.0.0 numbers.
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 7, 2013, at 9:11 PM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote:
> Nope. Comcast is not using any CGN, as much as I know.
>
> Is your MacBook di
Once upon a time, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) said:
> But knowing that a significant (50%+) of android devices may not support
> IPv6 (just like my brand new Samsung Galaxy 7'' tablet (just bought over
> the weekend) being v4-only) and may not be upgraded by their users to the
> right software, and that
hat's not been my experience.. see flow-spec for a great example. 'mostly
nullified' is .. disingenuous at best.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Morrow
> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:41 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati
> Cc: Chuck Anderson , nanog
In what sense do you mean that? The end-user IPv6 prefix certainly ties
IPv4 and IPv6 together, hence the interest in the Light-Weight IPv4 over
IPv6 alternative.
Tom
On 08/04/2013 3:13 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Chris,
UmmmŠ you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
e
v
PS: Please do note that the IPRs mostly get nullified once they are
through the IETF standards process.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:41 PM
To: Rajiv Asati
Cc: Chuck Anderson , nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
>
e clarity, Chuck.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rajiv
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chuck Anderson
> > Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
> > To: Rajiv Asati
> > Cc: Christopher Morrow , nanog list
> >
> > Subject: Re: Veri
; -Original Message-
> From: Chuck Anderson
> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati
> Cc: Christopher Morrow , nanog list
>
> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
> >I think he means patent encumbered.
> >
> >On Mon, Apr 08, 2013
nog.jp/~masakazu/vyatta/map/
http://mapt.ivi2.org:8039/readme.txt
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Tore Anderson
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:20 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson , nanog list
Cc: Rajiv Asati
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>* Tore Anderson
>
>> The tu
Oh, it certainly is (per the IETF IPR rules).
Thanks for the clarity, Chuck.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Anderson
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Rajiv Asati
Cc: Christopher Morrow , nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>I think he means pat
t; accommodate this IPv4 A+P encoding.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Morrow
> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 2:28 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati
> Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , nanog list
> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
&g
PM
To: Rajiv Asati
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
>On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> wrote:
>
>Yes, MAP (T-Translation or E-Encap mode) is implemented on two regular
>routers that I know of - ASR9K and ASR1K. With
From: Jack Bates
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 10:23 AM
To: Tore Anderson
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a "whole" IPv4
>> address or even a pre
erizon DSL moving to CGN
>
>On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:21 , Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>
>> Dual-stack in the home networks will stay with us for a long time
>>(beyond 2020!) until v4-only user devices and v4-only apps get refreshed.
>
>I disagree. I think that v4-only a
oes Cisco support MAP on? Specifically, does the DPC3827
> support it?
MAP BR function is supported on ASR9K and ASR1K.
I am not aware of MAP CE function support on DPC3827 CPE router.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: "", III
Date: Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:56 PM
To:
-2012-NGN-IPv4-Exhaust-
IPv6-Strategy.pdf
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Tore Anderson
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 6:29 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: Rajiv Asati , nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>* Mikael Abrahamsson
>
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013,
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> Yes, MAP (T-Translation or E-Encap mode) is implemented on two regular
> routers that I know of - ASR9K and ASR1K. Without that, you are right that
> MAP wouldn't have been as beneficial as claimed.
>
glad it's cross platform... is it
27;s Front Against WWW
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 6:01 AM
To: Rajiv Asati
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>
>> Thankfully, MAP is not CGN. Correctly stated, unlike DS-Lite, MAP
>> doesn't require a
gitimate users.
Malcolm Staudinger
Information Security Analyst | EIS
EarthLink
-Original Message-
From: cb.list6 [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 6:24 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
Interesting.
http://www22.verizon.com/support/res
Indeed MAP-E requires CPE replacement/upgrade cost.
But I would like to share JANOG Softwire WG Activity.
http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/58856/apnic35-janog-softwire_1361559276.pdf
MAP-E already supported by 6 vendors,7 implementations.
It includes 2 open source(OpenWRT an
On 4/8/2013 9:58 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
That happened a long time ago. I realize the people like to think of
wireless providers as different, they really aren't. A big chuck of
our mobile gaming customers come to us via carrier operated nat
translators. Some of them now come to us via ipv6, mo
On 4/8/13 7:23 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a "whole" IPv4
address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
need for [srcport-restricted] NAPT44 in the CPE.
The problem is NAPT44 in the
In a message written on Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:41:34AM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
> Respectfully, I disagree. If the major content providers were to deploy
> IPv6 within the next 6 months (pretty achievable even now), then the
> need for CGN would at least be very much reduced, if not virtually
>
> I understand why MAP-E is not translation now.
so far, the sexiest implementation of statless a+p to date.
randy
On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a "whole" IPv4
address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
need for [srcport-restricted] NAPT44 in the CPE.
The problem is NAPT44 in the CPE isn't enough. We are reaching the
* Tore Anderson
> The tunnel endpoint will 99.99% of cases be a CPE with a NAPT44
> component though, so there is some NAT involved in the overall solution,
> but it's pretty much the same as what we have in today's CPEs/HGWs. The
> only significant difference is that a MAP CPE must be prepared to
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Tore Anderson wrote:
If this is to be called "translation", then any tunneling mechanism that
works by stacking layer-3 headers, including GRE, IPIP, ESP, and
proto-41, must be also called "translation".
Oki, my bad. I read
https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/91-townsle
* Tore Anderson
>> Does anyone see MAP-E being implemented on regular linecards or is it
>> going to be implemented on processor based dedicated hardware? At least
>> initially, I would just assume it's going to be some kind of CGN blade.
>
> No idea, sorry.
https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations
* Mikael Abrahamsson
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>> AIUI, the standards-track flavour of MAP, MAP-E, is *not* NAT - it is
>> tunneling, pure encap/decap plus a clever way to calculate the outer
>> IPv6 src/dst addresses from the inner IPv4 addresses and ports. The
>> inner IPv4 p
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Mikael Abrahamsson
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled
access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP network having its
internet customers do IPv4 address sharing and emb
* Owen DeLong
> Respectfully, I disagree. If the major content providers were to deploy
> IPv6 within the next 6 months (pretty achievable even now), then the
> need for CGN would at least be very much reduced, if not virtually
> eliminated.
I agree with "very much reduced". However, and IMHO, "v
* Mikael Abrahamsson
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>
>> MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled
>> access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP network having its
>> internet customers do IPv4 address sharing and embrace IPv6.
>
> It's still NAT.
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Thankfully, MAP is not CGN. Correctly stated, unlike DS-Lite, MAP
doesn't require any CGN that causes the SP network to put up with the
NAT state. This means that all the subsequent issues of CGN/DS-Lite no
longer apply.
For me as an operator,
On 4/8/13 9:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 23:27 , Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>> > * Owen DeLong
>> >
>>> >> The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to deploy IPv6, it
>>> >> is caused by it.
>> >
>> > In a historical context, this is true enough. If we had accomplished
On Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:41:34AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Respectfully, I disagree. If the major content providers were to deploy
> IPv6 within the next 6 months (pretty achievable even now), then the
> need for CGN would at least be very much reduced, if not virtually
> eliminated.
Surely the
On Apr 7, 2013, at 23:27 , Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Owen DeLong
>
>> The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to deploy IPv6, it
>> is caused by it.
>
> In a historical context, this is true enough. If we had accomplished
> ubiquitous IPv6 deployment ten years ago, there would be no I
* Owen DeLong
> The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to deploy IPv6, it
> is caused by it.
In a historical context, this is true enough. If we had accomplished
ubiquitous IPv6 deployment ten years ago, there would be no IPv4
depletion, and there would be no CGN. However, that ship ha
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
I don't disagree. You are actually making the exact point I was
attempting to make. The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to
deploy IPv6, it is caused by it.
Absolutely. That doesn't mean that any individual ISP right now can choose
to *not*
On Apr 7, 2013, at 15:43 , Oliver Garraux wrote:
> If I'm an ISP deploying a network for users today, I effectively have to
> provide some mechanism to allow those users to get to IPv4 only content.
> There is way too much stuff out there that is IPv4 only today.
>
Agreed... However...
> Y
On Apr 7, 2013, at 18:21 , Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> Dual-stack in the home networks will stay with us for a long time (beyond
> 2020!) until v4-only user devices and v4-only apps get refreshed.
I disagree. I think that v4-only apps and devices will get relegated to being
connected throug
MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled
access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP network having its internet
customers do IPv4 address sharing and embrace IPv6.
What may make 'much more sense' in one network, doesn't necessarily make
as much since in another n
=
From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) [raj...@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 21:11
To: Huasong Zhou
Cc: Joshua Smith; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
Nope. Comcast is not using any CGN, as much as I know.
Is your MacBook directly connected to the
- Original Message -
> From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)"
> Note that Vz FiOS users are not affected by this. And noting that Vz
> has ~5.5M FiOS HSI customers and ~3M DSL customers (per the last
> earning report), and noting that DSL network is not getting any new
> investment (in fact, custom
In all fairness, upgrading the legacy last-mile e.g. DSL infrastructure to
support native IPv6 may be too expensive to make any economic sense.
Note that Vz FiOS users are not affected by this. And noting that Vz has ~5.5M
FiOS HSI customers and ~3M DSL customers (per the last earning report), a
Dual-stack in the home networks will stay with us for a long time (beyond
2020!) until v4-only user devices and v4-only apps get refreshed.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the ISP access needs to stay dual-stack,
thanks to MAP, 464XLAT etc.
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On Apr 7, 2013, a
> DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access. MAP is also
> CGN.
Thankfully, MAP is not CGN. Correctly stated, unlike DS-Lite, MAP doesn't
require any CGN that causes the SP network to put up with the NAT state. This
means that all the subsequent issues of CGN/DS-Lite no l
Nope. Comcast is not using any CGN, as much as I know.
Is your MacBook directly connected to the modem or a router? I presume the
latter.
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On Apr 7, 2013, at 11:47 AM, "Huasong Zhou" wrote:
> I think Comcast is using CGN too!!! My IP address displayed on my Ma
On 4/6/2013 11:33 PM, Huasong Zhou wrote:
I think Comcast is using CGN too!!! My IP address displayed on my MacBook is in
the 10.0.0.0/8 range, and ARIN website can't determine my IP address either.
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:33 PM, "Joshua Smith" wrote:
Very interesting
If I'm an ISP deploying a network for users today, I effectively have to
provide some mechanism to allow those users to get to IPv4 only content.
There is way too much stuff out there that is IPv4 only today.
Yes, content providers should provide IPv6 accessbut if I'm an ISP, I
can't really c
On Apr 7, 2013, at 00:31 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
>
>> CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism
>> through IPv6
>> At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
>> Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
>
> CGN doesn't stop
> Would you be less upset if there was IPv6 access and CPE based DS Lite
ds lite, nat in the core and cpe forklift. one of the worst mechanisms.
randy
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Derek Ivey wrote:
It would be nice to get an update from them regarding their IPv6 plans. Their
IPv6 support page still says they will start deploying "3Q12" :(.
I've been trying to get some information from internal contacts, but so
far, no go.
jms
* Mikael Abrahamsson
> Otoh, ARIN isn't exhausted yet so getting IPv4 addresses there should
> still be a lot cheaper than doing CGN?
>From what I hear several ISPs in the ARIN region prefer to obtain
second-hand IPv4 addresses (or deploy CGN boxes) over requesting
addresses directly from ARIN, a
I think Comcast is using CGN too!!! My IP address displayed on my MacBook is in
the 10.0.0.0/8 range, and ARIN website can't determine my IP address either.
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:33 PM, "Joshua Smith" wrote:
> Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Veri
* Mikael Abrahamsson
> My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing stopping
> anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle IPv4
> address exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be done at
> any time.
>
> Face it, we're running out of IPv4 address
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:54:04 +0300, Alex said:
> Well if the RFCs would just be set in stone already like Moses's 10
> commandments
> and if the programmers would actually start writing code for v6
> and if the web site hosting servers would at least have dual stack
> enabled on them
> it would be
Jimmy Hess writes:
> On 4/6/13, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
>>
>> I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
>> are on the transfer market.
>
> You mean like a few linux servers running iptables nat-masquerade?
>
> You think the "
Well if the RFCs would just be set in stone already like Moses's 10
commandments
and if the programmers would actually start writing code for v6
and if the web site hosting servers would at least have dual stack
enabled on them
it would be great.
But till then we just change a RFC here, band-a
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through
IPv6
At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the
water without ot
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through
IPv6
At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
My 2 cents
On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> I wonder how mu
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I wonder how much more painful just upgrading the dsl plant to support
v6 would be vs deploying the cgn equipment and funneling users through
that :(
IPv6 deployment is not a short term solution to IPv4 address depletion.
Would you be less upset
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 01:40:09 -0400, Christopher Morrow said:
> I wonder how much more painful just upgrading the dsl plant to support v6
> would be vs deploying the cgn equipment and funneling users through that :(
The answer depends on whether the person making the decision thinks they'll
have l
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> >> ...CGN will not impact the access,
> >> reliability, speed, or security of Verizon’s broadband services. ...
> ...
> >
>
> Good luck with that, pretty much by definition it has to do all four
> (albeit at levels that shouldn't be detectab
On 07/04/13 12:11, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 6 April 2013 18:24, cb.list6 wrote:
>> Interesting.
>>
>> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
>
>
...
>> ...CGN will not impact the access,
>> reliabilit
On 4/6/13, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
>
> I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
> are on the transfer market.
You mean like a few linux servers running iptables nat-masquerade?
You think the "Carrier Grade" in "Carrier Grade
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
are on the transfer market.
That depends on what you think the prices are for IPv4 addresses and what
you think the prices are for CGN boxes. At the prices I'm hearing, it's
che
- Original Message -
> From: "cb.list6"
> Interesting.
>
http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
What I find amusing is how they call it "Carrier Grade NAT" one time, and
then switch to calling it "Carr
On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
Interesting.
http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
are on the transfer market.
Matthew Kaufman
On 6 April 2013 18:24, cb.list6 wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
> What is CGN - and How to opt-out The number and types of devices using the
> Internet have increased dramati
It would be nice to get an update from them regarding their IPv6 plans.
Their IPv6 support page still says they will start deploying "3Q12" :(.
On 4/6/2013 9:32 PM, Joshua Smith wrote:
Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may be
the first time I've been happy t
Good to see that they are providing a way for users to opt out. I'm hoping
that other ISP's will do the same when they implement CGN.
Oliver
-
Oliver Garraux
Check out my blog: blog.garraux.net
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/olivergarraux
On Sat, Apr 6
Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may be
the first time I've been happy to be a Comcast customer.
--
Josh Smith
kD8HRX
email/jabber: juice...@gmail.com
Phone: 304.237.9369(c)
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:24 PM, "cb.list6" wrote:
> Interesting.
88 matches
Mail list logo
