On Sunday 11 April 2010 06:18:28 am Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> According to the book "On the edge" by Brian Bagnall the first showing
> was in March 1977. In January of 1977 it was announced at the CES. It
> was shown to John Roach, then an operations guy of Rat
> Shack. He was interested to ha
* Paul Vixie:
> as you have pointed out many times, ipv6 offers the same number of /32's
> as ipv4. however, a /32 worth of ipv6 is enough for a lifetime even for
> most multinationals,
With 6RD on the table, this is not quite correct anymore.
> plenty of people have accused ipv6 of being a solution in search of a
> problem. on this very mailing list within the last 72 hours i've seen
> another person assert that "ipv6 isn't needed." while i tend to agree
> with tony li who of ipv6 famously said it was "too little and too
> soon" we ha
> From: David Conrad
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:52:24 -1000
>
> On Apr 11, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > ... i'd like to pick the easiest problem and for that reason i'm urging
> > dual-stack ipv4/ipv6 for all networks new or old.
>
> Is anyone arguing against this?
yes. plenty of
In message <54701fcf-13ea-44da-8677-26a7c6635...@virtualized.org>, David Conrad
writes:
> On Apr 11, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > i'd like to pick the easiest problem and
> > for that reason i'm urging dual-stack ipv4/ipv6 for all networks new =
> or old.
>
> Is anyone arguing agains
> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:28:39 -0400
>
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:09:25 +0200, Eliot Lear said:
>
> > them). If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort
> > of testing isn't done at interop?
>
> Interop long ago ceased being a interop shooto
On Apr 11, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i'd like to pick the easiest problem and
> for that reason i'm urging dual-stack ipv4/ipv6 for all networks new or old.
Is anyone arguing against this? The problem is what happens when there isn't
sufficient IPv4 to do dual stack.
Regards,
-drc
> From: David Conrad
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:30:05 -1000
>
> > unless a market in routing slots appears, there's no way for the direct
> > beneficiaries of deaggregation to underwrite the indirect costs of same.
>
> And that's different from how it's always been in what way?
when 64MB was a
Paul,
On Apr 11, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> David Conrad writes:
>> Growth becoming significantly more expensive is guaranteed. ...
> more expensive for whom, though?
ISPs requiring space will have to pay more and I fully anticipate that cost
will propagate down to end users. In (s
On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:34 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Part fo the reason folks aren't rushing to the V6 bandwagon is it's not
>>> needed. Stop doing the chicken little dance folks. V6 is nice and gives
>>> us tons of more addresses but I can t
David Conrad writes:
>> Growth in IPv4 accessible hosts will stop or become significantly more
>> expensive or both in about 2.5 years (+/- 6 months).
>
> Growth stopping is extremely unlikely. Growth becoming significantly more
> expensive is guaranteed. ...
more expensive for whom, though? i
On Apr 12, 2010, at 12:39 AM,
wrote:
> IPv6 isn't heavily used *currently*, so it may be perfectly acceptable to
> deal with the mythological IPv6 DDoS
The only IPv6-related DDoS attacks of which I'm aware to date is miscreants
going after 6-to-4 gateways in order to disrupt one another's IP
On Apr 11, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Part fo the reason folks aren't rushing to the V6 bandwagon is it's not
>> needed. Stop doing the chicken little dance folks. V6 is nice and gives us
>> tons of more addresses but I can tell you V4 is more than two years form
>> "dying" just b
>>
> We've been dealing with the IPV4 myth now for over 7 years that i have
> followed it. It's about as valid as the exaflood myth. Part fo the reason
> folks aren't rushing to the V6 bandwagon is it's not needed. Stop doing the
> chicken little dance folks. V6 is nice and gives us tons of
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:31:28 EDT, William Warren said:
> On 4/3/2010 1:39 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > Given that currently most stuff is dual-stack, and IPv6 isn't totally
> > widespread, what are the effects of doing IPv6 DDoS mitigation by simply
> > turning off IPv6 on your upstream
William Warren writes:
> We've been dealing with the IPV4 myth now for over 7 years that i have
> followed it. It's about as valid as the exaflood myth. Part fo the
> reason folks aren't rushing to the V6 bandwagon is it's not needed. Stop
> doing the chicken little dance folks. V6 is nice an
On 4/3/2010 1:31 PM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:43 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: legacy /8
On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote:
That adoption is so low at this point
On 4/3/2010 1:39 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT, Jeffrey Lyon said:
For small companies the cost of moving to IPv6 is far too great,
especially when we rely on certain DDoS mitigation gear that does not
yet have an IPv6 equivalent.
So? How many p
Jeroen van Aart writes:
> ...
>
> That was at the West Coast Computer Faire in mid-April of 1977, organised
> by Jim Warren of Dr. Dobbs Journal. The first major gather of hobbyists
> and microcomputer companies. Apparently an important moment in the
> microcomputer history.
seems like i saw a
Roland Perry wrote:
There are at least two sources which date the PET to "Winter CES" and
"Jan 1977", but I agree that June CES is where production items would be
first shown; however by then schools were out and my project was
finished (I was studying to be maths teacher).
I thought people m
On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data
>> showing how CGN
>> is more expensive would be very helpful.
>
> It depends.
...
> That math may or may not make sense for your network..
Right. My question was more along
On 04 Apr 2010 16:07, James Hess wrote:
> Using a 'key' is slightly less of a network operator nightmare than
> having 100 featuresets, and thousands of mystery meat images for the
> same software version. At least you don't need to go buy a new
> software image, and do a full upgrade procedure to
> > Nobody promised you a free lunch. In any case, the investment required
to
> > turn up IPv6 support is a lot less than the cost of carrier grade NAT.
And
> > the running costs of IPv6 are also lower,
>
> Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data
showing how CGN
> is
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:09:25 +0200, Eliot Lear said:
> them). If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort
> of testing isn't done at interop?
Interop long ago ceased being a interop shootout and became a 8x11 color glossy
trade show. I think the last time any actual *testing
In a message written on Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:12:48AM -0400, Brandon Ross
wrote:
> The suggestion was to run a "v6 only network". Does anyone on the NANOG
> list believe that v6 is at all ready to be run without any v4
> underpinnings and provide a real service to a customer base?
Is it read
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> > If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort of
> > testing isn't done at interop? Or is it just sad that v6 isn't so close
> > to being ready? Or is it both?
>
> The
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:12:48AM -0400, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> >If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort of
> >testing isn't done at interop? Or is it just sad that v6 isn't so close
> >to being ready? Or is it both?
>
> The su
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Eliot Lear wrote:
I remember the days of Ron Natalie running around with a cherry picker in San
Jose, and the whole point of the network being to test interoperability, so
that things would and did break (and then we fixed them). If v6 is even
close to ready, wouldn't it b
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Eliot Lear wrote:
If v6 is even close to ready, wouldn't it be sad that this sort of
testing isn't done at interop? Or is it just sad that v6 isn't so close
to being ready? Or is it both?
The suggestion was to run a "v6 only network". Does anyone on the NANOG
list beli
On 4/5/10 6:02 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
Seriously? You do realize that the InteropNet actually has to provide
a real service to the exhibitors and attendees of the show, right?
This year's network will support v6, but a v6-only network is just not
a practical way to supply real network connec
0 3277 3267
30132 12654 I
--Heather
-Original Message-
From: John Palmer (NANOG Acct) [mailto:nan...@adns.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:37 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: interop show network (was: legacy /8)
When do you think that 1/8, 2/8 and 50/8 will sta
Re: interop show network (was: legacy /8)
On 5 Apr 2010, at 9:13, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Christopher Morrow wrote:
[...]
If we could recover them all, how many more years of IPv4 allocations
would that buy us?
We allocate RIRs approximately one /8 per month. So you'd ha
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 12:01:47PM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
> Christopher Morrow writes:
>
> > also, see previous 12 episodes of this conversation.. 1 /8 == ~3months
> > in ARIN allocation timeframes.
>
> 1 /8 at global IANA free pool runout time (which is the only
> reasonable way to
Christopher Morrow writes:
> also, see previous 12 episodes of this conversation.. 1 /8 == ~3months
> in ARIN allocation timeframes.
1 /8 at global IANA free pool runout time (which is the only
reasonable way to think about it...) will buy us about 24 days on a
global consumption basis... assu
On 2010.04.05 09:20, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.04.02 19:29, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>> Was looking for the "allocated" file on the ARIN website, but can't
>> remember
>> where it is. They used to have a file with one line per allocation that
>> started
>> like this "arin|US|ipv4". I
On 5 Apr 2010, at 9:13, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Christopher Morrow wrote:
[...]
> If we could recover them all, how many more years of IPv4 allocations
> would that buy us?
We allocate RIRs approximately one /8 per month. So you'd have to reclaim 12
/8s to extend the allocation
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael Sokolov
wrote:
> Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
>> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
>> included in the base licence.
>
> Really? My level of respect for
On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:07 PM, James Hess wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Michael Sokolov
> wrote:
>> feature blocking seems to negate that. I mean, how could their
>> disabled-until-you-pay blocking of "premium features" be effective if a
>> user can get to the underlying Unix OS, shell,
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> If we could recover them all, how many more years of IPv4 allocations would
> that buy us?
>
>
Not enough.
> --
> Jon Lewis | I route
> Senior Network
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Christopher Morrow wrote:
also, see previous 12 episodes of this conversation.. 1 /8 == ~3months
in ARIN allocation timeframes.
Does a trade show really need 16M IPv4 addresses though? How many other
/8's were assigned way back when IPv4 was being given out so freely that
On 2010.04.02 19:29, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Majdi S. Abbas"
> To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)"
> Cc: "NANOG list"
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
>>
Do like the Chinese if you want a feature put out a billion dollar
tender with the feature mandatory and they will rush to do it
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
On 5/04/2010, at 14:48, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 4/
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:13 PM
> To: Zaid Ali
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
>
> > They are not glowing because applicat
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 04:31:25PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> > a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> > included in the base licence.
Interesting. So much for their "IPv6 doesn't cos
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>
>> Someone in another thread mentioned interop show network. Which made me
>> curious and I did a bit of searching. I found the following article from
>> 2008 about the interop show:
>> http://www.ne
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:01:36 -0700
joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/3/2010 6:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't know how
> > simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols were designed
> > more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more ca
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone in another thread mentioned interop show network. Which made me
curious and I did a bit of searching. I found the following article from 2008
about the interop show: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27583
The show could setup an IPv
On 4/3/2010 6:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't know how
simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols were designed
more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more capable than IPv4.
Zing, and there you have it! The hourglass is thin
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had
>>> laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardwa
On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had laying
around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due to it's
fib being a bit undersized for
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had
> laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due
> to it's fib being a bit undersized for 330k routes plus v6, but hey, six
> years is lo
>> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
>> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
> Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6
> has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.
and, after all, if ipv6 takes off, we plan to throw
> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> included in the base licence.
yep
maybe try is-is
randy
On 4/4/10 2:04 PM, "Vadim Antonov" wrote:
>
>> Zaid
>>
>> P.s. Disclaimer: I have always been a network operator and never a dentist.
>
> I would have thought opposite.
>
It is sometimes helpful to draw lessons from nature and other systems :)
> People who have been on this list longer wou
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Michael Sokolov
wrote:
> feature blocking seems to negate that. I mean, how could their
> disabled-until-you-pay blocking of "premium features" be effective if a
> user can get to the underlying Unix OS, shell, file system, processes,
Probably signed binaries, ver
> Zaid
>
> P.s. Disclaimer: I have always been a network operator and never a dentist.
I would have thought opposite.
People who have been on this list longer would probably remember when I
was playing in this sandbox.
The real wisdom about networks is "never try to change everything and
ever
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
>> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
>
> Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU d
Tore Anderson wrote:
> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> included in the base licence.
Really? My level of respect for Juniper has just dropped a few notches
after reading this NANOG p
On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,We
> need more of the spirit of the old days of networking when people building
> UUCP, and Fidonet and IP networks did less complaining about "vendors" and
> made thing
On 4/4/10 6:44 AM, "Leen Besselink" wrote:
> "Out of the total number of emails received, 14% were received over
> IPv6, the rest over IPv4."
It should be clear that 14% received here is email to RIPE NCC servers. I
don't think we have 14% of SMTP traffic out there coming via IPv6. Actual
SMTP
Owen DeLong wrote:
>It was based on 56kbit lines and the primary applications were
>email, ftp, and telnet.
(you have to have the right Yorkshire accent and Monty Python background
for this...)
56kbit lines? If only we were so lucky...
We had 9600 V.29 synchronous modems!
Synchronous? My g
In article <4bb897a7.60...@consolejunkie.net>, Leen Besselink
writes
>> (I saw a number in the last 2-3 days that 2-3% of spam is now being delivered
>> via SMTP-over-IPv6). You may not need that gear as much as you thought...
>
>This maybe ?:
>http://labs.ripe.net/content/spam-over-ipv6
>
>"Out
> > Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher
> > license fee for IPv6 support?
>
> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> included in the base licence.
>
> Our IPv6
On 04/03/2010 07:39 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT, Jeffrey Lyon said:
For small companies the cost of moving to IPv6 is far too great,
especially when we rely on certain DDoS mitigation gear that does not
yet have an IPv6 equivalent.
So? How man
In article <201004041249.o34cnuut078...@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco
writes
Some sources claim the PET is later, but I remember it because I was
doing a project on "PCs in Schools" in the spring of 1977, using an
8-bit PC that I had built myself on a patchboard. And the PET arrived
just in time fo
* Michael Dillon
> Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher
> license fee for IPv6 support?
Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
included in the base licence.
Our IP
> In article <207e4e4f-b642-424e-8649-810a589da...@delong.com>, Owen
> DeLong writes
> >I believe the IPv4 classful addressing scheme (which some have pointed
> >out was the second IPv4 addressing scheme, I wasn't involved early
> >enough for the first, so didn't remember it) predates commodore
In article <207e4e4f-b642-424e-8649-810a589da...@delong.com>, Owen
DeLong writes
I believe the IPv4 classful addressing scheme (which some have pointed
out was the second IPv4 addressing scheme, I wasn't involved early
enough for the first, so didn't remember it) predates commodore, apple,
etc
On 4/3/10 9:12 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
> Uh, netflix seems fully functional to me on IPv6. What do you think is
> missing?
Functional is the easy part and it seems Netflix has executed that well. I
was implying that the v6 traffic rate might not be quite there yet which is
what we saw with
>> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,
>
> and if cash fell from the sky ...
>
> to folk actually running real networks, 'support' means *parity* with
> ipv4, i.e. fast path at decent rates, management and monitoring, no
> licensing extortion, ...
>
> we don't
This sounds like
Step 1: I have a wisdom tooth, it hurts on my right jaw and so I will chew
from my left.
Step 2: Take some pain killers.
Step 3: Damn it hurts I will ignore it and it will eventually heal.
Step 4: Continue to take pain killers and perhaps if I sleep more it will
grow in the rig
On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> They are not glowing because applications are simply not moving to IPv6.
> Google has two popular applications on IPv6, Netflix is on it way there but
> what are other application companies doing about it? A popular application
> like e-mail is so far
On Apr 3, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It was thought that we would not have nearly so many people connected to the
>> internet. It was expected that most things connecting to the internet would
>> be minicomputers and mainframes.
>
> It took some visionary
Someone in another thread mentioned interop show network. Which made me
curious and I did a bit of searching. I found the following article from
2008 about the interop show:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27583
The show could setup an IPv6 only network in order to showcase it?
Tha
On 03/04/10 23:11 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote:
With all that bitching about IPv6 how come nobody wrote an RFC for a very
simple solution to the IPv4 address exhaustion problem:
+1 years.
Step 1: specify an IP option for extra "low order" bits of source &
destination address. Add handling of t
On Sat, Apr 03, 2010, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> Step 1: specify an IP option for extra "low order" bits of source &
> destination address. Add handling of these to the popular OSes.
Don't IP options translate to "handle in slow path" on various routing
platforms? :)
THat makes "leave backbones un
With all that bitching about IPv6 how come nobody wrote an RFC for a very
simple solution to the IPv4 address exhaustion problem:
Step 1: specify an IP option for extra "low order" bits of source &
destination address. Add handling of these to the popular OSes.
Step 2: make NATs which directl
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
David Barak wrote:
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Mark Smith
> wrote:
> > To: "George Bonser"
> > > No. But that isn't the point. The point is
> > that v6 was a bad solution
> > > to the problem. Rather than simply address the
> > address depletion
> > > probl
--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Mark Smith
wrote:
> To: "George Bonser"
> > No. But that isn't the point. The point is
> that v6 was a bad solution
> > to the problem. Rather than simply address the
> address depletion
> > problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that
> nobody has while
> > creating a
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,
and if cash fell from the sky ...
to folk actually running real networks, 'support' means *parity* with
ipv4, i.e. fast path at decent rates, management and monitoring, no
licensing extortion, ...
we don't have that tod
Hi,
Vint Cerf kindly sent through some more explanation.
Regards,
Mark.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 08:17:28 -0400
From: Vint Cerf
To: Mark Smith
Cc: Andrew
Gray <3...@blargh.com>, NANOG List Subject: Re:
legacy /8
When the Internet design work began, there wer
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 11:25:48 -0700
"George Bonser" wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:54 AM
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: legacy
ks glowing with IPv6 connectivity? If it's not the
> hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or processes?
>
> Frank
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 20
On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,
> why aren't transit links glowing with IPv6 connectivity? If it's not the
> hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or processes?
Or the fact that "sup
mostly to the
for-profits) to find native IPv6 access because it provides an immediate and
direct savings
Frank
-Original Message-
From: James Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:08 PM
To: George Bonser
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: legacy /8
I suppose if
Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Larry Sheldon
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: legacy /8
> Not often you hear something that has changed just about every aspect of
> life and enabled things that could not be imagined at its outset
> No. But that isn't the point. The point is that v6 was a bad solution
> to the problem. Rather than simply address the address depletion
> problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that nobody has while
> creating a whole bunch more that we will have.
it's known as "second system syndrome."
> -Original Message-
> From: ma...@isc.org [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:42 AM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: Larry Sheldon; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
> And we would have still had the same problem of intercommunica
On Apr 3, 2010, at 8:25 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> The point is that v6 was a bad solution to the problem.
Well, yes, but...
> Rather than simply address the address depletion
> problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that nobody has while
> creating a whole bunch more that we will have.
On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, jim deleskie wrote:
>> Just like 640k or memory :)
> But what if I said "640 petabytes will be more than anyone will ever need".
> The future might prove me wrong but it probably won't happen for a long time.
> That's a b
In message <5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee08fe6...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com>,
"George Bonser" writes:
> No. But that isn't the point. The point is that v6 was a bad solution
> to the problem. Rather than simply address the address depletion
> problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that no
> -Original Message-
> From: George Bonser [mailto:gbon...@seven.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:26 AM
> To: Larry Sheldon
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: legacy /8
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Larry Sheldon
> -Original Message-
> From: James Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:08 PM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM, George Bonser
> wrote:
> > Any school tea
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:54 AM
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
> That is the parachute's fault?
>
> Really?
> --
No. But that isn't
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:12:20 +1030, Mark Smith said:
> going to be enough. I'm not sure why the 32 bit address size was
> persisted with at that point - maybe it was because there would be
> significant performance loss in handling addresses greater than what
> was probably the most common host wo
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> Any school teaching v4 at this point other than as a legacy protocol
> that they teach on the second year because "they might see it in the
> wild" should be closed down. All new instruction that this point should
> begin and end with v6 wit
> Not often you hear something that has changed just about every aspect of
> life and enabled things that could not be imagined at its outset called
> a failure
Sounds like you are describing the Roman Empire. It failed and that's why
we now have an EU in its place.
Things change. Time to move o
On 4/3/2010 12:31, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:43 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>>
>> On 4/3/2010 10:34, Micha
In message <4bb7621b.9030...@cox.net>, Larry Sheldon writes:
> On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote:
> >> That adoption is so low at this point really says that it has failed.
> >
> > In the real world, there is no success or failure, only next steps.
> > At this point, IPv4 has failed,
>
>
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT, Jeffrey Lyon said:
> For small companies the cost of moving to IPv6 is far too great,
> especially when we rely on certain DDoS mitigation gear that does not
> yet have an IPv6 equivalent.
So? How many people are *realistically* being hit by IPv6 DDoS right now?
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
