>>>
>>> Thus far, IPv6 has been the "Field of Dreams" those of us who have
>>> built it, we know they have not yet come (the IPv6 customers). That's
>>> all this discussion is really about is "when will they come".
>>
>> Some of us have quite a few IPv6 customers:
>> http://www.worldipv6la
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:55:21 -0400, Lee Howard said:
> Some of us have quite a few IPv6 customers:
> http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
> And we see significant traffic from those users. :-)
I'm actually glad to see that we're no longer on the first page
of that list. ;)
pgpvBn_f_1Zc
Bob Evans
CTO
>
>
> On 3/24/14 9:12 PM, "Bob Evans" wrote:
>
>>
>>I agree with "one" thing herein
>>
>>> In order for IPv6 to truly work, everyone needs to be moving towards
>>>IPv6.
>>
>>Yep, chicken and the egg. I agree. We built an IPv6 "native" network - no
>>tunneling - no customers to
On 3/24/14 9:12 PM, "Bob Evans" wrote:
>
>I agree with "one" thing herein
>
>> In order for IPv6 to truly work, everyone needs to be moving towards
>>IPv6.
>
>Yep, chicken and the egg. I agree. We built an IPv6 "native" network - no
>tunneling - no customers to speak of ... didn't even both
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Bob Evans wrote:
>
> Thus far, IPv6 has been the "Field of Dreams" those of us who have
> built it, we know they have not yet come (the IPv6 customers). That's
> all this discussion is really about is "when will they come".
>
> I know the core of the Interne
I agree with "one" thing herein
> In order for IPv6 to truly work, everyone needs to be moving towards IPv6.
Yep, chicken and the egg. I agree. We built an IPv6 "native" network - no
tunneling - no customers to speak of ... didn't even bother to start IPv6
peering on it.
> Maintaining dual
On Mar 23, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> ISP's have done a good job of brain washing their
>> customers into thinking that they shouldn't be able to
>> run services from home. That all their machines
>> shouldn't have a glo
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> It will be a long time
>>> before the price of v4 rises high enough to make it
>>> worth the risk of going v6 only.
>>
>> New ISP's are born everyday.
>>
>> Some of them will be able to have a "Buy an ISP that has
>> IPv4" or "Buy IPv4 spac
How long, exactly, do you expect 3.2 billion unicast addresses to provide
enough addressing for 6.8+ billion people?
Oh, I'd say a decade. Like I said, I have IPv6 on my server and my home
broadband, which mostly works, with the emphasis on the mostly.
We've just barely started to move from
On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:36 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Justin M. Streiner
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
>>> wrote:
All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 re
IPv4 has already been trading around $10/address.
So the prices quoted a while back don’t make much sense to me.
Further, could you please quantify “vast”? How many /8 equivalents in
a “vast number”?
Until they ran out, APNIC was issuing approximately 1.5 /8s per month.
How long, exactly, do yo
Let’s assume, for a moment, that there are 32 /8s out there that could be
reclaimed.
Let’s further assume that renumbering out of a /8 takes, on average, about 18
months.
(That’s moving almost 1,000,000 customers per month on average, potentially).
Even if we got all 32 /8 equivalents back over
In order for IPv6 to truly work, everyone needs to be moving towards IPv6.
Maintaining dual protocols for the entire internet is problematic, wasteful,
and horribly
inefficient at best. Bottom line, the internet outgrew IPv4 almost 30 years ago
and
we’ve been using various hacks like NAT as a so
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:02:13 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> Actually all you have stated in that printer vendors need
> to clean up their act and not that one shouldn't expect
> to be able to expose a printer to the world. It isn't
> hard to do this correctly. It also does not cost much
> on a p
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 07:57:04PM -, John Levine wrote:
> >In such a case, where you are still pushing the case for
> >IPv4, how do you envisage things will look on your side when
> >everybody else you want to talk to is either on IPv6, or
> >frantically getting it turned up? Do you reckon
In message <532f42aa.9000...@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard writes:
> On 23/03/2014 18:39, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > As for printers directly reachable from anywhere, why not.
>
> because in practice it's an astonishingly stupid idea. Here's why:
>
> chargen / other small services
> ssh
> www
> buffe
On 23/03/2014 18:39, Mark Andrews wrote:
> As for printers directly reachable from anywhere, why not.
because in practice it's an astonishingly stupid idea. Here's why:
chargen / other small services
ssh
www
buffer overflows
open smtp relays
weak, default or non existent passwords
information le
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:24:35 PM Cb B wrote:
> My hope is that folks stop equating firewalls with
> security, when the first step is to secure the host,
> accountability is with the host, then layer other tools
> as needed.
I couldn't agree more.
As an example, your home PC (whose OS wasn't
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:05:54 PM Cb B wrote:
>
>> i would say the more appropriate place for this policy is
>> the printer, not a firewall. For example, maybe a
>> printer should only be ULA or LLA by default.
>>
>> i would hate for peopl
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:05:54 PM Cb B wrote:
> i would say the more appropriate place for this policy is
> the printer, not a firewall. For example, maybe a
> printer should only be ULA or LLA by default.
>
> i would hate for people to think that a middle box is
> required, when the best p
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Philip Dorr wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2014 1:11 PM, "Mark Tinka" wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> > I was at work last week and because I have IPv6 at both
>> > ends I could just log into the machines at home as
>> > easily a
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:39:51 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> Can I suggest that you re-read what I said. I did not
> say "WILL BE REACHABLE". I said "THEORETICALLY
> REACHABLE". I also said "GLOBAL UNIQUE" address not
> "PUBLIC ADDRESS".
>
> The point is one should be able to get addresses wit
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:35:48 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> Or IT isn't buying the 'renumbering is easy' argument,
> for any non-trivial size company even figuring how where
> exactly can be IP addresses punched out statically would
> be expensive and long process.
> If you are pushing for customer t
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:30:21 PM Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
> As far as the enterprise side of things, many of the
> people working in that area today have likely never
> known any other kind of network except the NAT kind. A
> lot of these guys say things like 'private ip' and
> 'public ip' - th
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:27:57 PM Philip Dorr wrote:
> That is what a firewall is for. Drop new inbound
> connections, allow related, and allow outbound. Then
> you allow specific IP/ports to have inbound traffic.
> You may also only allow outbound traffic for specific
> ports, or from you
In message <201403232009.47085.mark.ti...@seacom.mu>, Mark Tinka writes:
> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > ISP's have done a good job of brain washing their
> > customers into thinking that they shouldn't be able to
> > run services from home. That all their machine
On (2014-03-23 20:09 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:
> I expect this to change little in the enterprise space. I
> think use of ULA and NAT66 will be one of the things
> enterprises will push for, because how can a printer have a
> public IPv6 address that is reachable directly from the
> Internet,
On Mar 23, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> Basically because none of them have ever been on the Internet proper
> where they can connect to their home machines from wherever they
> are in the world directly. If you don't know what it should be
> like you don't complain when you a
On Mar 23, 2014 1:11 PM, "Mark Tinka" wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > I was at work last week and because I have IPv6 at both
> > ends I could just log into the machines at home as
> > easily as if I was there. When I'm stuck using a IPv4
> > only service
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> ISP's have done a good job of brain washing their
> customers into thinking that they shouldn't be able to
> run services from home. That all their machines
> shouldn't have a globally unique address that is
> theoritically reachable from
In message <20140323051037.94159.qm...@joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> >> It will be a long time
> >> before the price of v4 rises high enough to make it
> >> worth the risk of going v6 only.
> >
> >New ISP's are born everyday.
> >
> >Some of them will be able to have a "Buy an ISP that has
>
* John Levine
> Also, although it is fashionable to say how awful CGN is, the users
> don't seem to mind it at all.
You might just be looking in the wrong places.
Try searching for "playstation nat type 3" or "xbox strict nat".
Tore
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 07:10:37 AM John Levine wrote:
> In Africa, I suppose, but here in North America, the few
> remaining ISPs that aren't part of giant cable or phone
> companies are hanging on by their teeth.
Incidentally, this doesn't apply to Africa today, because
AFRINIC still have lo
>> It will be a long time
>> before the price of v4 rises high enough to make it
>> worth the risk of going v6 only.
>
>New ISP's are born everyday.
>
>Some of them will be able to have a "Buy an ISP that has
>IPv4" or "Buy IPv4 space from known brokers" line item in
>their budget as part of thei
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 09:57:04 PM John Levine wrote:
> We've just barely started to move from the era of free
> IPv4 to the one where you have to buy it, and from
> everyhing I see, there is vast amounts of space that
> will be available once people realize they can get real
> money for it.
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
That's what I hear. Interesting thing though: it hasn't happened yet.
IANA ran out of /8's and it didn't happen. The RIRs dropped to
high-conservation mode on their final allocations and it didn't
happen. How could that be?
I never said that things wo
>In such a case, where you are still pushing the case for
>IPv4, how do you envisage things will look on your side when
>everybody else you want to talk to is either on IPv6, or
>frantically getting it turned up? Do you reckon anyone will
>have time to help you troubleshoot patchy (for example)
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
>>
>>
>> IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll b
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 05:54:06 PM Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> Interesting analogy, but it misses the larger point. The
> larger point is that the ongoing effort to squeeze more
> mileage out of IPv4 will soon [1] outweigh the mileage
> we (collectively) get out of it. IMHO, that effort is
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll be useless long before it goes
away. And right now it's far from useless.
Bill:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
Hi Justin,
IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll be useless long before it goes
away. And right now it's far from useless.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. H
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created.Why is
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bryan Socha wrote:
> Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
> them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
> liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
> every eyeball network
On Mar 22, 2014 2:32 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
>
> Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
> them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
> liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
> every eyeball network creat
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created.Why is v4 a commodity and asset? Where
is the au
Fair point. There are some situations that do need more than most, but
aren't they the ones that should be on ipv6 already???
I know a few are shouldn't I be on ipv6 and that's fair too. I'm
plqnnning some speaking engagements to cover that. Its not blind and
ignoring.
On Mar 22, 2014 4:
Millions of IPs don't matter in the face of X billions of people, and
XX-XXX billions of devices - and this is just the near term estimate.
(And don't forget utilization efficiency - Millions of IPs is not millions
of customers served.)
Do IPv6.
/TJ
On Mar 22, 2014 3:09 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
47 matches
Mail list logo
