On 15/08/2009, at 4:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm going to contradict you there. Classful addressing had a lot to
recommend it. The basic problem we ran in to was that there weren't
enough B's for everyone who needed more than a C and there weren't
enough A's period. So we started handing out gr
Hi,
On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 00:38 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> With IPv6 we have more than enough addresses to give a /56 to
> everybody who needs more than a /60 and a /48 to everybody who needs
> more than a /56.
I don't think this is a good assumption to make. Just because the
namespace keyle
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I'm going to contradict you there. Classful addressing had a lot to
>> recommend it. The basic problem we ran in to was that there weren't
>> enough B's for everyone who needed more than a C and there weren't
>> enough A's period. So we started
In November 24th 2008 Sunet together with Telia and Sprint reached 40Gb on one
wavelength using TAT-14. The total length for the project was 9600 kilometers
(the length of Sweden plus TAT-14).
The Swedish article can be found here
http://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.215856/sunet-forst-med-40-gigabi
Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> ... Dont know what web 2.0 is but the new portal is a web based
>> object management system complete
>> with "recommended" changes and inconsistency lists.
>> We just added prefix allocation check with backend information
>> from PCH (prefix checker tool).
>
> Web 2.0 is m
This 100-line document contains 62% of what you need to know to avoid
annoying 10,000 people in your email to the NANOG list. It also contains
pointers to another 23%. Please take 5 minutes to read it before
you post [again].
General Information
===
About NANOG:http://
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:40:34 -0400 (EDT)
Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, David Freedman wrote:
>
> > Will keep it simple, this is what I (and I suspect many others) do
> >
> > /128 - Loopback (what else?)
> > /126 - Router p2p
> > /112 - Router LAN shared segments (p2mp)
>
> Why even go
> Isn't it great that we never have to worry about IPv4 style addressing
> issues (e.g. sizing the subnet, manually configuring the addresses, or
> having an "address configuration server" attached to the segment to
> manage addresses) when dealing with Ethernet in the last 27 years or
> so? Why is
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:09:00 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> > Isn't it great that we never have to worry about IPv4 style addressing
> > issues (e.g. sizing the subnet, manually configuring the addresses, or
> > having an "address configuration server" attached to the segment to
> > manage addresses)
9 matches
Mail list logo
