On 01/15/2011 02:01 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>> From: William Herrin
>> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 4:11 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Ah, but, the point here is that NAT act
On 1/15/11 1:24 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
> I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but
> have to say the alternative is not all that great either.
>
> Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use the
> IPv6 privacy extensions. Which are enabled by default
On 01/15/2011 03:01 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 1/15/11 1:24 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
>
>> I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but
>> have to say the alternative is not all that great either.
>>
>> Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use the
>> IPv
On Jan 15, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
> On 01/15/2011 03:01 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On 1/15/11 1:24 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but
>>> have to say the alternative is not all that great either.
>>>
>>> Because
On Jan 15, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 1/15/11 1:24 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
>
>> I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but
>> have to say the alternative is not all that great either.
>>
>> Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use t
--- tdona...@vonmail.vonworldwide.com wrote:
From: Tim Donahue
Sorry for the noise, but I was wondering if anyone has a NOC or BGP
knowledgeable contact with INDOSAT Internet Network Provider
(AS4761). I have emailed the hostmaster@ email address listed in the
WHOIS contact, and tried call
We are doing this now and it is working well
-Original Message-
From: Harris Hui [mailto:harris@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 4:59 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Single AS Number for multiple prefixes in different country
Hi,
We have an AS Number AS2 and have 2 /24
Not to budge in here ... but I have always been curious of this type of
setup, as in all my past BGP deployments its always been that all edges
belong in the same ibgp peering group.
Ryan, does the other edge(s) get confused when they see their same AS number
in the path upon route determination f
On 1/15/11 8:51 PM, Graham Wooden wrote:
> Not to budge in here ... but I have always been curious of this type of
> setup, as in all my past BGP deployments its always been that all edges
> belong in the same ibgp peering group.
>
> Ryan, does the other edge(s) get confused when they see their sa
On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:21 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> I'd eat a hat if a vendor didn't implement a PAT equivalent. It's
>> demanded too much. There is money for it, so it will be there.
>>
>>
>> Jack
>
> Yeah, I think you are right. But in really thinking about it, I wonder
> why. The whol
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Brian Keefer wrote:
> 1.) Allows you to redirect a privileged port (on UNIX) to a
> non-privileged port. For daemons that don't implement some
> form of privilege revoking after binding to a low port (and/or aren't
> allowed to run as root), this is very useful.
On Jan 12, 2011, at 3:49 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>
>> What is considered normal with regards to access to your co-located
>> server(s)? Especially when you're just co-locating one or a few servers.
>
> For less than 1 rack, or specialty racks wi
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Brian Keefer wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:21 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'd eat a hat if a vendor didn't implement a PAT equivalent. It's
>>> demanded too much. There is money for it, so it will be there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jack
>>
>> Yeah, I think you are rig
> I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but
> have to say the alternative is not all that great either.
>
> Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use the
> IPv6 privacy extensions. Which are enabled by default on Windows
> when IPv6 is used on XP, Vista
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will
probably be implemented for IPv6:
You are neglecting the most important reason, much to my own disdain.
Service providers will continue to assign only a single IP address to
residential
On Jan 15, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
>
>> Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will probably be
>> implemented for IPv6:
>
> You are neglecting the most important reason, much to my own disdain. Service
> providers
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
I really doubt this will be the case in IPv6.
I really hope you are right, because I don't want to see that either,
however...
Why do you suppose they did that before with IPv4? Sure you can make the
argument NOW that v4 is in scarce supply, but 10
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST)
Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
>
> > Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will
> > probably be implemented for IPv6:
>
> You are neglecting the most important reason, much to my own disdain.
> Serv
On 1/15/11 3:24 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
I really doubt this will be the case in IPv6.
I really hope you are right, because I don't want to see that either,
however...
Why do you suppose they did that before with IPv4? Sure you can make
the argument N
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011, Mark Smith wrote:
How do you know - have you asked 100% of the service providers out
there and they've said unanimously that they're only going to supply a
single IPv6 address?
Huh? Who said anything about 100%? It would take only a single
reasonably sized provider that
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 06:24:01PM -0500, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I really doubt this will be the case in IPv6.
>
> I really hope you are right, because I don't want to see that either,
> however...
>
> Why do you suppose they did that before with IPv4?
I hope the engineers in the organization will just tell their marketing folk
that it's not possible to hand out just one IPv6 address. "Our hardware
doesn't support it."
I think there's still room for ISPs to charge $10/month for a static prefix,
though. And that's technically possible.
Frank
Hi
Try this: supp...@indosat.com
Hope that help.
Willy
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Tim Donahue <
tdona...@vonmail.vonworldwide.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for the noise, but I was wondering if anyone has a NOC or BGP
> knowledgeable contact with INDOSAT Internet Network Provider
> (A
On Jan 15, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST)
> Brandon Ross wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
>>
>>> Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will
>>> probably be implemented for IPv6:
>>
>> You are neglecting
On Jan 15, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I really doubt this will be the case in IPv6.
>
> I really hope you are right, because I don't want to see that either,
> however...
>
> Why do you suppose they did that before with IPv4? Sure you
On Jan 15, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> I hope the engineers in the organization will just tell their marketing folk
> that it's not possible to hand out just one IPv6 address. "Our hardware
> doesn't support it."
>
> I think there's still room for ISPs to charge $10/month for a static
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:39:09 -0500 (EST)
Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > How do you know - have you asked 100% of the service providers out
> > there and they've said unanimously that they're only going to supply a
> > single IPv6 address?
>
> Huh? Who said a
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:21:52 -0600
"Frank Bulk" wrote:
> I hope the engineers in the organization will just tell their marketing folk
> that it's not possible to hand out just one IPv6 address. "Our hardware
> doesn't support it."
>
> I think there's still room for ISPs to charge $10/month for
On 01/15/2011 06:30 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST)
Brandon Ross wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will
probably be implemented for IPv6:
You are neglecting the most important reason, m
On Jan 15, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:21:52 -0600
> "Frank Bulk" wrote:
>
>> I hope the engineers in the organization will just tell their marketing folk
>> that it's not possible to hand out just one IPv6 address. "Our hardware
>> doesn't support it."
>>
>>
30 matches
Mail list logo
