On 28 Jun 2007, at 18:27, John Curran wrote:
At 10:16 AM -0700 6/28/07, Randy Bush wrote:
Interoperability is achieved by having public facing
servers reachable via IPv4 and IPv6.
that may be what it looks like from the view of an address allocator.
but if you actually have to delive
On 28 Jun 2007, at 19:17, Donald Stahl wrote:
The problem is twofold. First, if Google isn't going to index IPv6
content, no one cares if their content isn't available that way.
That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer 7,
v6 is an addressing system that runs at l
On Friday 15 June 2007 00:27, Olsen, Jason wrote:
> So, what practices do you folks follow? What are the up
> and downsides you encounter?
At my previous employer, we came up with a formula that we
were happy with. For reverse DNS, it involves:
* defining the interface
* defining the device f
That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer 7, v6 is
an addressing system that runs at layer 3. If we'd (the community) got
everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to Google's applications whether
the content came from a site hosted on a v4 address, or a v6 address
Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is
pretty pointless.
--
Sent from my BlackBerry.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33
To:Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:00:36 BST, Alexander Harrowell said:
> 1. IPv4 address space is a scarce resource and it will soon be exhausted.
>
> 2. It hasn't run out already due to various efficiency improvements.
>
> 3. These are themselves limited.
>
> 4. IPv6, though, will provide abundant addres
On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote:
That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer
7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3. If we'd (the
community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to
Google's applications whether the content came
On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
I'm not saying that v6 should be binned in favour of turning off
the internet when we run out of v4, but this is a non-exhaustive
list of projects we all should be undertaking. Is everyone on the
list working through their own list ? I'd
multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams.
the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group
this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level
Steve
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +, Christian Ku
Amazink! Some things on NANOG _never_ change. Trawling for trolls I must be.
If you want to emulate IPv4 and destroy the DFZ, yes, this is trivial. And you
should go ahead and plan that migration.
As you well known, one of the core assumptions of IPv6 is that the DFZ policy
stay intact, ost
In ARIN you have a policy to request IPv6 PI. So what is the problem ?
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Christian Kuhtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:37:23 +
> Para: Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donald Stahl
> <[EMAIL PR
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Kevin Oberman
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:15 PM
To: Stephen Wilcox
Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:42:47 +010
Some weeks ago I started to work in documenting how to setup 6to4 and Teredo
relays/servers in several platforms for the afripv6-discuss mailing list.
There are many 6to4 relays already, but it becomes even more important to
have them where the bandwidth is more expensive, because it avoids traff
steve. >multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your
upstreams
Hey, that's a very "simplistic" IGP point of view !!
I'm afraid I disagree :)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
steve. >
steve. >multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to y
Hi Christian,
I am not seeing how v4 exhaustion, transition to v6, multihoming in v6 and
destruction ov DFZ are correlated.
If you took everything on v4 today and migrated it to v6 tomoro the routing
table would not grow - actually by my calculation it should shrink (every ASN
would only need
Christian,
On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
If you want to emulate IPv4
Given IPv6 is IPv4 with 96 more bits (or, if you prefer 16 more bits
from the ISP perspective), why would you assume there is a choice?
and destroy the DFZ,
I'm not sure what "destroy the DFZ" m
Then you get some networks who name all the routers after cheeses or
characters from bill and ben the flowerpot men.
--
Leigh
Mark Tinka wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 00:27, Olsen, Jason wrote:
So, what practices do you folks follow? What are the up
and downsides you encounter?
Hi Stephen,
Supose you have STM4 links, ok?
And you have 2G of trafic from your 10 ADSL customers, ok?
And those STM4 go to 3 dif carriers in USA.
Then, how you advertise only one IPv6 prefix to all and make the 2G go
trough one STM4 ?
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
steve. >
s
[ As it is Friday: IPv4 doomsday clock: http://penrose.uk6x.com/ ]
Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> If you want to emulate IPv4 and destroy the DFZ, yes, this is trivial.
> And you should go ahead and plan that migration.
>
> As you well known, one of the core assumptions of IPv6 is that the DFZ policy
>
If you took everything on v4 today and migrated it to v6 tomoro the
routing table would not grow - actually by my calculation it should
shrink (every ASN would only need one prefix to cover its current and
anticipated growth). So we'll see 22 routes reduce to 25000.
Even if you gave everyo
I remember in the past an excellent system using Sesame Street characters names.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>
> Mythic Beasts Ltd, IIRC, names their machines after, uh, mythic
> beasts. Which is consistent, but not especially useful..
perhaps a decent other question is: Do I want to let the whole world know
that router X with interfaces of type Y/Z/Q i
Mythic Beasts Ltd, IIRC, names their machines after, uh, mythic
beasts. Which is consistent, but not especially useful..
On 6/29/07, Leigh Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then you get some networks who name all the routers after cheeses or
characters from bill and ben the flowerpot men.
--
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:35:09 BST, "Neil J. McRae" said:
> I remember in the past an excellent system using Sesame Street characters
> names.
This only works in small shops. If you have more routers than muppets, you
have a problem. Had a lab once where we named machines after colors. That
hit s
Hi Steve,
Sure... I've never mention 3 STM4... the example said 3 carriers.
OK, you may do it with communities, but if you advertise all in just one
prefix, even with communities, I find it very difficult to control the
trafic when it pass through 2 or more AS (it may be quite easy for the
pee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:35:09 BST, "Neil J. McRae" said:
I remember in the past an excellent system using Sesame Street characters names.
This only works in small shops. If you have more routers than muppets, you
have a problem. Had a lab once where we named machines
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:15:30 PDT, you said:
> Star Trek Federation Starships... they seem to invent more daily, so no
> problems running out.
If your DNS is RFC3490-enabled, you can go for the Klingon and Romulan
ships too. Particularly handy if you're into security through obscurity. :)
pgp
> If you have more routers than muppets, you have a problem.
More muppets than routers is also a problem
brandon
Steven M Bellovin writes:
> I'll give just example, using your suggestion of converting DMZ: how
> do you keep your firewall rules consistent between v4 and v6
> addresses and prefixes?
This is indeed a major issue in our (internal) dual-stack deployment.
Our firewall rules (actually just statele
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net.
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED
No, I specifically said you need to buy from upstreams who support BGP
communities. You do not prepend to your upstreams but have them prepend to
their peers such that you adjust which are selected to get the appropriate
ratio on your inbound
Steve
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:46:00PM -0300, Ni
On 29-jun-2007, at 17:05, David Conrad wrote:
and destroy the DFZ,
I'm not sure what "destroy the DFZ" means. The DFZ will get
bigger, no question. Routing flux will go up. Routers will have
to work harder. Router vendors will be happy. However, I'm not
sure how that could be inter
Nicolás Antoniello wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> To use AS path prepend when you advertise just one prefix does not solve
> the problem...in this case it actually make it worth, 'cos you may find
> all your trafic coming from only one of your uplinks.
Sure if you overdo it... Like I said It's a fairly
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Cat Okita wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> > perhaps a decent other question is: Do I want to let the whole world know
> > that router X with interfaces of type Y/Z/Q is located in 1-wilshire.
> >
> > I suppose on the one hand it's helpful to know that
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Nicol?s Antoniello wrote:
To use AS path prepend when you advertise just one prefix does not solve
the problem...in this case it actually make it worth, 'cos you may find
all your trafic coming from only one of your uplinks.
Despite being a v6 skeptic, I'm not
This is one more reason, some OSs may not support IPv6 DNS transport, so you
need to keep dual stack.
Also, if roots/TLDs do not support yet IPv6, you will need to have at least
a dual stack DNS in your network.
I think in the long term we will be there, using IPv6-only in LANs, but
don't see th
What I recall from the ICANN Lisbon meeting (end of March), after the SSAC
and RSSAC recommendations, is that a plan is being worked out with the root
operators in order to make sure that they have the deployment done and then
the hints file is modified.
I believe this will not take too much time
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
My view is that deploying only IPv6 in the LANs is the wrong approach in the
short term, unless you're sure that all your applications are ready, or you
have translation tools (that often are ugly), and you're disconnected from
the rest of the IPv4 Internet.
You're
Because we have designed IPv6 with the view of a smooth transition AND
co-existence, and that means dual-stack, at least in the end-sites.
Otherwise is not *smooth* anymore, and you will find troubles, it is just a
matter of time they will get resolved, of course.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Pete Te
John Curran wrote:
Steve -
For the first end site that has to connect via IPv6,
it will be very bad if there is not a base of IPv6
web/email sites already in place.
As the network administrator for a Web hosting company, I've not seen
any coherent (and useful) information about
40 matches
Mail list logo
