On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Mark Keymer wrote:
I guess I am confused. Don't you have to pay for IP4 space? I know I am still
fairly new to things. So maybe I just don't get it.
Legacy IPv4 holders have no obligation to ARIN until they sign an RSA.
Antonio Querubin
808-545-5282 x3003
e-mail/xmpp: t..
i'm looking for a speedtest server suite, like NDT
http://netspeed.stanford.edu/ which can be run using a FreeBSD server.
any leads?
thanx
--
Jim Mercerj...@reptiles.org+92 336 520-4504
On Apr 8, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Mark Keymer wrote:
>
>> I guess I am confused. Don't you have to pay for IP4 space? I know I am
>> still fairly new to things. So maybe I just don't get it.
>
> Legacy IPv4 holders have no obligation to ARIN until they s
On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:49 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:52 AM, William Pitcock wrote:
>> And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your
>> average comcast user is on IPv6?
>
> The chances of this actually occurring in our lifetime are so small as to be
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>
> > Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those
> > who have
> > IP4 legacy space.
> >
> > Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP
> > space. If not, is ARIN
> > saying
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
> Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has
> usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying
> anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not
> encourage adoption of IPv6, where suddenly there
> Joe Greco wrote:
> > It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's
> > moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to
> > a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space.
> >
> > We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee.
> When I had the need to wire a building around 1987, I opted for the
> multiport 10Base5 repeaters that DEC made -- they were called DELUAs,
> I think. I'd had quite enough of distributed single points of failure,
> thank you.
Think those were something else;
DEMPR = Digital Ethernet Multi Po
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>>
>>> Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those
>>> who have
>>> IP4 legacy space.
>>>
>>> Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:31 PM, John Payne wrote:
>> Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6
>> space under the same terms. Or am I missing something?
>
> If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN
>provide you with anything?
Because ARIN is one of the guardians of
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
>
>
> It's like government services for the elderly. Though today many are a
> net drain on society, they've mostly earned their place with past
> action and it's the decent and charitable thing to do for the folks
> who created the possibility of the
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> >> On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those
> >>> who have
> >>> IP4 legacy space.
> >>>
> >>> Isn't there an automatic allocation fo
David Hubbard wrote (on Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:07:05AM -0400):
> From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
> >
> >
> > It's like government services for the elderly. Though today many are a
> > net drain on society, they've mostly earned their place with past
> > action and it's the decent a
>
> IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
> eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
> to come.
To be fair - IPv6 only content may not exactly be commonplace, but there are
IPv6-only networks out there ... they just tend to consist of "things
> Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues
> ("you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any
> reason, as we see fit")?
I'd be curious to know what the justification for such a policy would
be under v6. Even if space were obtained under false preten
Hello All,
First, apologies for the change in email address.. my work account was
getting a little busy so I've moved my lists to my Gmail account. But
onward..
I'm interested in peering exchange design. We are not lucky enough to
have access to a peering exchange so I have no direct expe
On 08/04/10 18:02, Brad Fleming wrote:
> 1) Is a private AS typically used for the exchange side of the session?
No. Everybody uses his own AS number to establish sessions at peering
points.
> 2) Are RFC1918 IPs typically used for the p2p links into the exchange?
No. You usually get an IP add
On 2010-04-08, at 12:02, Brad Fleming wrote:
> 1) Is a private AS typically used for the exchange side of the session?
No. Also many exchange points do not run route servers at all, and expect
participants to build bilateral BGP sessions directly between each other.
> 2) Are RFC1918 IPs typica
Just half an hour ago China Telecom hijacked one of our prefixes:
Your prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19:
Prefix Description: NETNAME
Update time: 2010-04-08 15:58 (UTC)
Detected by #peers: 1
Detected prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19
Announced by: AS23724 (CHINANET-IDC-BJ-AP IDC, China
Te
This assumes that small = /40 and large = /22.
Still, with more realistic numbers:
The small guy (/48) pays $0.019073486 per /64
The large guy (/24) pays $0.00032741808 per /64
FWIW.
Owen
On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:48 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:17:49 PDT, "Gary
i think so yeah
AS 23724 is now announcing 63.218.188.0/22 which is historically announced
by ASes: 3491.
Time: Thu Apr 8 16:55:02 2010 GMT
Observed path: 812 174 4134 23724 23724
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
>
> Just half an hour ago China Telecom hijacked one of
Re JOe,
jab...@hopcount.ca (Joe Abley) wrote:
> > 1) Is a private AS typically used for the exchange side of the session?
> No. Also many exchange points do not run route servers at all, and expect
> participants to build bilateral BGP sessions directly between each other.
...which is a shame.
On 8-4-2010 18:02, Brad Fleming wrote:
1) Is a private AS typically used for the exchange side of the session?
No.
2) Are RFC1918 IPs typically used for the p2p links into the exchange?
No. In EU usually it is separate public /24, /23 or /22. The IPv6 range
in RIPE region for exchanges is
On 2010-04-08, at 12:42, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> jab...@hopcount.ca (Joe Abley) wrote:
>
>>> 1) Is a private AS typically used for the exchange side of the session?
>> No. Also many exchange points do not run route servers at all, and expect
>> participants to build bilateral BGP sessions direct
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:33:42 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka said:
> Your prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19:
> Detected prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19
> Luckily it had to be limited as only one BGPmon peer saw it. Anyone else
> noticed it?
Sorry, I'm not seeing an announcement for X.Y.Z.0/19 here.
pgpP4S2yd6Lg1.
Some Research&Education type peering exchanges, like Pacific Wave
http://www.pacificwave.net/ , support ipv4 multicast forwarding. As
an exchange operator you'd want to support PIM-Snooping and the
ability to disable DR-Flooding to control those flows just to the
networks that joined them
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 11:02 -0500, Brad Fleming wrote:
> 1) Is a private AS typically used for the exchange side of the session?
Not in a typical public internet exchange. that said, there is no
reason why one could not build an exchange point that uses private ASNs.
One might do this for a spec
We also got a BGPmon notification of a possible prefix hijack:
Possible Prefix Hijack (Code: 10)
Your prefix: 206.107.43.0/24:
Update time: 2
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:54 AM, TJ wrote:
>>
>> IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
>> eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
>> to come.
>
>
> To be fair - IPv6 only content may not exactly be commonplace, but there are
> IPv6-only networ
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
> It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
> the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of
> encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual
> clauses as s
Hi Grzegorz,
.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 08/04/10 9:33 AM
Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
Just half an hour ago China Telecom hijacked one of our prefixes:
Your prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19:
Prefix Description: NETNAME
Update time: 2010-04-08 15:58 (UTC)
Detected by #peers: 1
Detected prefi
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:54:21AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:54 AM, TJ wrote:
>
> >>
> >> IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
> >> eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
> >> to come.
> >
> >
> > To be fair - I
Hi,
We received BGPmon notifications for all of our prefixes as well. Not sure if
it's relevant, but this is also announced upstream from us by 3491. Example:
Possible Prefix Hijack (Code: 10)
==
On 07 Apr 2010 16:17, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year
>> for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what
>> you would call significant?
>>
> As always, the devil is i
Just wondering if this was a "Fat fingered" mistake or intentional...
-J
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Pater [mailto:fpa...@dca.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:20 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: China prefix hijack
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We received BGPmon notifications f
On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is
> *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being
> unregulated to regulated, whatever that means.
ARIN is not a regulator. The "jump" is from not paying for serv
Hello Lee ,
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Lee Howard wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of
encouraging v6 adoption. The la
On 08/04/10 13:27 -0400, Joe wrote:
Just wondering if this was a "Fat fingered" mistake or intentional...
If it was a mistake, I hope he fares a bit better than his counterparts
in other Chinese industries...
--
Dan White
Hello,
Just a note of confirmation that 23724 originated as many as 31847
prefixes during an 18 minute window starting around 15:54 UTC.
They were prepending their own AS, and this is several orders of
magnitude more prefixes than they normally originate.
-Martin
--
Martin A. Brown --- Ren
Hello Stephen ,
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 07 Apr 2010 16:17, Gary E. Miller wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year
for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what
you wo
On 08/04/10 17:17 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of
a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet this amnt of space was
allocated to someone who only needed to address "3 servers"... say
six total out of a pool of
On Apr 8, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> Hello Lee ,
>
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Lee Howard wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
>>> It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
>>> the space fairly l
I operate the exchange point in the Kansas City area so I'll answer your
questions based on how we do it.
1) Is a private AS typically used for the exchange side of the session?
No. Each participant uses their own ASN.
2) Are RFC1918 IPs typically used for the p2p links into the exchange?
No.
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 12:50:26PM -0500, Dan White wrote:
> On 08/04/10 17:17 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of
> > a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet this amnt of space was
> > allocated to someone
Hi, team.
Joe wrote:
> Just wondering if this was a "Fat fingered" mistake or intentional...
I'm thinking "oops."
Looking only for prefixes with the aspath " 4134 23724 23724 ," and
only on 2010-04-08 UTC, we see 15210 prefixes announced.
Of those, 9598 are allocated to CN, 11017 are allocated
On 04/08/2010 11:00 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues
>> ("you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any
>> reason, as we see fit")?
>
> I'd be curious to know what the justification for such a policy would
> be under v
I am looking for suggestions on devices that can
monitor(A)/meter(kw/h) power usage in a data center. Getting a
metered PDU everywhere seems a little expensive and cumbersome.
Are there devices you can wire into breaker box to meter each AC circuit?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
-Jay
>
> 3a) If no: Do participants typically preference exchange-learned
> routes over other sources?
>
> Yes. As far as I know all our members set routes learned through the
> exchange fabric higher than anything else. That's kind of the point as
> exchange traffic is free so you always want
We use products from Veris. If you could be more specific as to what you want
to meter (and where, and types / brands of panels), I could point you further.
> I am looking for suggestions on devices that can
> monitor(A)/meter(kw/h) power usage in a data center. Getting a
> metered PDU everywhe
On 08 Apr 2010 12:42, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> Hello Lee ,
>
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Lee Howard wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
>>> It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing
>>> out the space fairly liberally, wh
-Original Message-
From: Jay Nakamura [mailto:zeusda...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:10 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Metering power in data center
I am looking for suggestions on devices that can
monitor(A)/meter(kw/h) power usage in a data center. Getting a
metered PDU everywhe
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere
wrote:
>> And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment
>> maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation
>> maintenance fee table, would that really be "significant" in the grand
>> scheme of th
On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>3a) If no: Do participants typically preference exchange-learned
>> routes over other sources?
>>
>> Yes. As far as I know all our members set routes learned through the
>> exchange fabric higher than anything else. That's kind of the point
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
> > It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
> > the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of
> > encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual
>
This is a pretty boring topic. It's been argued many times over.
I think the more interesting discussion is:
- Where is ARIN and the RIR's headed?
- What will ARIN look like 10 years from now?
Mission creep seems to be pervasive in all organizations. ICANN with a
headcount of over 100 and
Is NANOG == ARIN ? or North America in Scope ?
==
What do the following /8 ?"Owners"? pay for their CyberLand ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt
004/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> With IPv6 designed the
> way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if
> some questionable delegations are made?
Joe,
You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations?
Yes, with suitably question
On 04/08/2010 10:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would
>> be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource
>> without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_
>> that they're not _entitled_ to do the s
-Original Message-
On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>3a) If no: Do participants typically preference exchange-learned
>> routes over other sources?
>>
>> Yes. As far as I know all our members set routes learned through the
>> exchange fabric higher than anything el
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:22:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere
> wrote:
> >> And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment
> >> maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation
> >> maintenance
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:29:25AM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote:
> This is a pretty boring topic. It's been argued many times over.
>
> I think the more interesting discussion is:
> - Where is ARIN and the RIR's headed?
> - What will ARIN look like 10 years from now?
yuppers. this to
Using Semi-FREE 64-bit Allocations with IPv6
Why would anyone be paying for IPv6 Address Space ?
With the 64-bit Address Plan huge allocations are ?$10? per year.
12+18+30+4 maps to LL+LLL+L+4
Use the 64-symbol Alphabet: 0-9A-Za-z-. for 6-bits per L
Example:
LL=US
LLL=COM
L=ICANN
US_C
If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on
demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would
ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Kevin Stange wrote:
> On 04/08/2010 10:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> >> Legacy
[changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content]
On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> With IPv6 designed the
>> way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if
>> some questionable delegations are made?
>
On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on
> demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space
> would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money.
I'd hate to see that routing table.
--
Kevin Stange
Chief
Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?
As /8s are needed by Carriers (not ISPs) they will likely be able to
just take them.
Who will stop them. They have the Imperial Walker Routers & Gear.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt
http://en.wiki
Well, yeah, but that is a separate problem. Anyone for an
announced-prefix-tax ? :)
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Kevin Stange wrote:
> On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> > If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on
> > demand, and charged a one-time fee o
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA?
>
> Owen,
>
> ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the
> event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled
> throughout.
>
Let's clarify h
Might want to save the we're-all-going-to-die for nanog-lounge or
whatever was created and leave the more likely operational scenarios
here.
Just sayin'
-J
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
> Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?
>
> As /8s are needed by Carrie
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> [changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content]
>
> On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote:
>> Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out
>> of IPv6 quickly.
The bottom line (IMHO) is that IPv6 is NOT
More Likely Scenario AUTOMATED IPv4+ Management will CHURN /8s ?
Imagine this table times ?? 16
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt
Imagine a Fully-Automated Management System that can hand YOU a /18 in a /12
Imagine there are NO RIRs or Labor Union Bosses o
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:22:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere
>> > Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic
>> > region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't
> Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we
> should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the "old
> ways." It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations,
> /8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We use the enersure product from trendpoint in our data center. I'm not the
power guy but our mothership is an electric utility so I would assume it is a
good choice.
http://www.trendpoint.com/enersure.html
tlc
Todd Christell
Manager Network Arch
On 4/8/10 1:07 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
Might want to save the we're-all-going-to-die for nanog-lounge or
whatever was created and leave the more likely operational scenarios
here.
Just sayin'
Guillaume Fortaine v2.0, IMHO. :-)
--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
htt
* ipv3@gmail.com (IPv3.com) [Thu 08 Apr 2010, 21:15 CEST]:
Imagine a Fully-Automated Management System that can hand YOU a /18 in a /12
Imagine there are NO RIRs or Labor Union Bosses or PIMPS driving
around in Pink Cadillacs
Jim Fleming, don't you know better than to post to mailing list
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
...
> Imagine this table times ?? 16
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt
>
> Imagine a Fully-Automated Management System that can hand YOU a /18 in a /12
>
> Imagine there are NO RIRs or Labor Union Bosses or
RIRs are More Interested in Selling NEW than Pre-Owned?
It is a myth that IPv4 is "out of space". It has the same space it
started with if 32-bits are routed.
More bits can easily be used for routing purposes before switching to IPv6.
People seem to be happy with 34 bits, one extra bit at each end
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> [changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content]
>
> On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote:
>> You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations?
>>
>> Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is poss
On 4/8/10 1:32 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
RIRs are More Interested in Selling NEW than Pre-Owned?
It is a myth that IPv4 is "out of space". It has the same space it
started with if 32-bits are routed.
More bits can easily be used for routing purposes before switching to IPv6.
People seem to be happy wi
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 03:14:50PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM, wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:22:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere
> >> >Try that fee while trying to make a living in a d
"There is no finite resource that people can't waste."
"There is no finite resource that people can't make even more scarce &
Artificially Scarce" ?
and then Profit very nicely from the Artificial Scarcity & related myths
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
> eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
> to come.
So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6?
Why should WE care what you do to the point
NANOG Seems to be Dominated by NON-North American People ?
...odd
ARIN seems to have a similar situation
...odd
By the way, on likely scenarios, North America could become a Walled Garden
making many /8s available for decades.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.
BIll,
On Apr 8, 2010, at 9:39 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have
>> RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free
>> for your use.
>
> er... you misunderstand... there is no single "DFZ" anywh
> -Original Message-
> From: Brielle Bruns [mailto:br...@2mbit.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:35 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: RIRs are More Interested in Selling NEW than Pre-Owned?
>
> On 4/8/10 1:32 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
> > RIRs are More Interested in Selling NEW than
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne wrote:
> So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6?
> Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating
> new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else?
Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble finding
a
> To be fair, everything for a vax was somewhat pricey. And slow.
>
> On an even more unrelated note, does anyone remember the day that
> CMU-TEK tcp/ip stopped working some time in the early 1990s? That was a
> load of fun.
What made it stop working?
I was the guy to blame for the IP/TCP/UD
On 04/08/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access
>> to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and
>> start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we
>> have to form these organizations
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> Well, yeah, but that is a separate problem. Anyone for an
> announced-prefix-tax ? :)
Just add "announced prefixes" to the settlement charges, alongside bits
transferred...
- Matt
--
A friend is someone you can call to help you mov
IPv4+ 2010 Routable /8s for North America
12 63 64 65 68 69 70 71 72 74 75 76 99 139 151 192 199 204 205 206 207 216
...eventually things will "Free Up"
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:51:47AM -1000, David Conrad wrote:
> BIll,
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 9:39 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >> If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have
> >> RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free
> >> for your
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> > IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
> > eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
> > to come.
>
> So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6?
> Why should WE care what you d
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Martin A. Brown wrote:
> Just a note of confirmation that 23724 originated as many as 31847
> prefixes during an 18 minute window starting around 15:54 UTC.
> They were prepending their own AS, and this is several orders of
> magnitude more prefixes than they norm
We just got Cyclops alerts showing several of our prefixes sourced from
AS23474 propagating through AS4134. Anyone else?
aut-num: AS23724
as-name: CHINANET-IDC-BJ-AP
descr:IDC, China Telecommunications Corporation
country: CN
aut-num: AS4134
as-name: CHINANET-BAC
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne wrote:
>> So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6?
>> Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating
>> new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else?
>
> Because when
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:39 PM, wrote:
> er... you misunderstand... there is no single "DFZ" anywhere...
> it is a fiction.
Meh. Fiction or no, it does a suitably effective job connecting my
users to my servers when and where they want to connect.
> last ebay transaction I
Hi!
We just got Cyclops alerts showing several of our prefixes sourced from
AS23474 propagating through AS4134. Anyone else?
aut-num: AS23724
as-name: CHINANET-IDC-BJ-AP
descr:IDC, China Telecommunications Corporation
country: CN
aut-num: AS4134
as-name: CHINA
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>>
>>> IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
>>> eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
>>> to come.
>>
>> So again, why do WE have to encourage
> On 04/08/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> >> If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of acces=
> s
> >> to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and
> >> start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly =
> we
> >> have to form th
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
