On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
>>
>> IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
>> 6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
>>
>> There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start thinking abo
On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:14:10 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Interesting... "The Leadig Provider in Dhaka" is using hijacked addresses.
>
> Not according to APNIC...
>
> % [whois.apnic.net node-5]
> % Whois data copyright termshttp://www.apnic.
Discussed, Disgusted, and Dismissed.
The E space would take more software upgrades to existing systems than just
deploying IPv6.
Owen
On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Jeremy wrote:
> Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
> doesn't count as "future use" what does
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
FYI:
Results:
% [whois.apnic.net node-3]
% Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html
inetnum: 122.200.40.0 - 122.200.47.255
netname: SONARGAONONLINE
descr: Sonargaon Online Services
country: BD
admin-c: SI109-AP
tech-c: SI10
Jeremy,
I have not heard of any IP stack that is built to accept 240/4.
Neither Linux 2.6.37 nor Windows 7 accepts it, and let's not think
about all routers, including CPE:s, out there.
The logic goes:
You are many orders of magnitudes more likely to get v6 off the
ground, than 240/4 or 224/4 as u
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Per Carlson wrote:
Really? I've tried to duplicate the results in our lab, but I can't
provoke any problems at those numbers. Is it the "other" multicast
traffic that's interfering with ND?
It's a hold-queue problem. Normally IPv6 input is around 0.5% CPU on the
RP, but
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> Neither Linux 2.6.37 nor Windows 7 accepts it
Oops, I was clumpsy there, apologies. When I was testing this, I
messed up one of my hosts :/ It seems 240/4 *does* work as unicast v4
in Linux 2.6.37.
Then it's easy, just convert everythin
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jeremy wrote:
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as "future use" what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
the problem here)
I think it has been discussed at various levels, but would likely have
been dismissed for
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Discussed, Disgusted, and Dismissed.
>
> The E space would take more software upgrades to existing systems than just
> deploying IPv6.
>
It's true. It was only after discovering how much work it would take
to make 240/4 like RFC 1918 (truly i
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
This has come up before, in 2007, and earlier,
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2007-10/msg00487.html
Way too late now for unreserving 240/4 to help.
Now, if it had been unreserved in 2003 or so, there might not be so
many device
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> I've posted my notes from the afternoon sessions, including
> the lighting talks, at
>
> http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2011.01.31-NANOG51-afternoon-notes.txt
>
> for those are are following along remotely, or catching up after
> a good round
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:31:43PM -0600, Jeremy wrote:
> Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
> doesn't count as "future use" what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
> the problem here)
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/240-e
Last real message? 31 Oct
Figure I'll throw my 2 cents into this.
The way I read the RFCs, IPv6 is not IP space. Its network space. Unless I
missed it last time I read through them, the RFCs do not REQUIRE
hardware/software manufacturers to support VLSM beyond /64. Autoconfigure
the is the name of the game for the IPv6 guy
On Jan 31, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jeremy wrote:
>
>> Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
>> doesn't count as "future use" what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
>> the problem here)
>
> I think it has been
On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:35 PM, eric clark wrote:
> Figure I'll throw my 2 cents into this.
>
> The way I read the RFCs, IPv6 is not IP space. Its network space. Unless I
> missed it last time I read through them, the RFCs do not REQUIRE
> hardware/software manufacturers to support VLSM beyond /64.
On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:25 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
>> What does neutral really mean anyways? Terremark has sold, is selling and
>
> It is the same concept as network neutrality.
> An example of a non-neutral IP network is one where a competitor's website or
> service is blocked by the network o
> In my opinion, RFC 4193 is just a bad idea and there's no benefit to it vs.
> GUA. Just put a good stateful firewall in front of your GUA.
>
> I mean, really, how many things do you have that don't need access
> to/from the internet. Maybe your printers and a couple of appliances.
>
> The rest...
> Not to mention the software updates required to make it functional
> would exceed the
> software updates necessary for IPv6 _AND_ it has no lasting future.
Part one of that statement goes for v6 in a lot of places. The whole
NAT444 allocation argument would go away with this. Maybe we need bot
>
> 3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a
> year.
>
> jms
If used for general assignment, sure. But if used for what people have
been begging for NAT444 middle-4 space. Well, that might work. Code
update on the CPE is all it would take. The systems involved would
On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> In my opinion, RFC 4193 is just a bad idea and there's no benefit to it vs.
>> GUA. Just put a good stateful firewall in front of your GUA.
>>
>> I mean, really, how many things do you have that don't need access
>> to/from the internet. May
On 1/31/11 10:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> 3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a
>> year.
>>
>> jms
>
> If used for general assignment, sure. But if used for what people have
> been begging for NAT444 middle-4 space. Well, that might work. Code
> update on the
> There are negligible benefits as far as I can tell from the vantage
> points of end systems to creating new private scope ipv4 regions at
> this
> late date.
>
Here, yes. In other places, maybe there are other factors. I am not
saying I favor such a thing, just going through the exercise of t
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Matthew,
>
> On 30/01/2011 08:17 p.m., Matthew Petach wrote:
The problem I see is the opening of a new, simple, DoS/DDoS scenario.
By repetitively sweeping a targets /64 you can cause EVERYTHING in
that /64 to stop working
101 - 123 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
