On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
> server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6.
>
> netsh interface ipv6 install
>
If the customer knew how to do that he wouldn't still be using Windows XP.
Have a look at JuiceSSH.
--Original Message--
From: Mark Tinka
Sender: NANOG
To: David Hubbard
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Question re session hijacking in dual stack environments w/MacOS
Sent: Sep 29, 2015 03:23
On 26/Sep/15 16:34, David Hubbard wrote:
>
> Has anyone run into thi
Howdy,
Any gmail admins out there? I forward email addressed to me to a gmail
account. Overnight you started returning:
- Transcript of session follows -
... while talking to gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.:
>>> DATA
<<< 550 5.7.1 [IR] Our system has detected an excessively high number of
On 1 October 2015 at 00:37, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>
> Those that have the information are mostly busy
> engineers, for whom writing documentation is not their favorite thing.
>
There's also the issue that if you ask two NANOG engineers a technical
question you'll get (at least) five answers...
I wouldn't call it an issue.. it is precisely the potential multiplicity of
practices which gives strong value to a "best Common Operational Practice"
... that was the experience working towards ratifying a DDoS/DoS BCOP ...
and the BCOP keeps improving... all for the benefit of the Net Ops
commun
On 30 Sep 2015, at 23:37, Chris Grundemann wrote:
The problem is twofold. Those that care the most are the ones who need
the information, not those who have it
(for obvious reasons).
My view is the opposite - that those who have enough expertise,
experience, and vision to understand the prob
On Mon 2015-Sep-28 21:15:02 +0530, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
Hi Hugo
(My reply in line)
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
On Mon 2015-Sep-28 17:33:46 +0530, Anurag Bhatia
wrote:
Hello everyone
I recently got IPv6 working at home LAN. My Android device (Google Nexus
Dear colleagues,
Currently we are looking for a magic tool with which it is possible to
generate specific (realistic) traffic patterns between client and server
to analyze (monitor) traffic characteristics (jitter, delay, inter
arrival times, etc.).
It would be good if that wanted tool is not onl
How much traffic, and what data-points are you looking to describe? Is the
environment a controlled/sealed lab world (No access to the InterWebs)
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Flittner
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 11:21 AM
To: na
Cisco has an IOS version called Pagent which allows you to craft whatever
traffic types you want (you can even push MPLS labels on the packets if you
want). I've used this in the past for generating client/server traffic
flows and measuring stats on the flows.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Matt
You might also want to look at Ostinato (open source s/w)
--dmr
David Ramsey
Charlotte, NC
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Pablo Lucena
wrote:
> Cisco has an IOS version called Pagent which allows you to craft whatever
> traffic types you want (you can even push MPLS labels on the packets if
we use flent heavily in the bufferbloat project for creating traffic
like this and analyzing the resulting jitter, latency, and buffering.
https://www.flent.org/
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:47 PM, David Ramsey wrote:
> You might also want to look at Ostinato (open source s/w)
>
> --dmr
>
> David Ra
You can easily make one-way traffic patterns using nmap. You could use ping -A
to do adaptive ping, or ping -f to flood, both of which would help you find out
some simple metrics (dropped packets, intervals, pps, etc.).
or
You could use Expect to script some common functions, then just run th
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Matthias Flittner <
matthias.flitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Currently we are looking for a magic tool with which it is possible to
> generate specific (realistic) traffic patterns between client and server
> to analyze (monitor) traffic characteri
Mikrotik Traffic-Gen?
You can create a lot of packet templates.
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Performance_Testing_with_Traffic_Generator
--
Eduardo Schoedler
2015-10-01 13:20 GMT-03:00 Matthias Flittner :
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Currently we are looking for a magic tool with which it is po
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
>> server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6.
>>
>>netsh interface ipv6 install
>>
>
> If t
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
>On Wed 2015-Sep-30 17:43:40 -0400, Robert Webb wrote:
>>https://ipinfo.io/AS393742
>
>...I'm so behind the times; my response would have been:
>
> $ finger 393...@peeringdb.com
Whois is often useful as well, not for peering info of course but that
isn'
Dear colleagues,
Currently we are looking for a magic tool with which it is possible to
generate specific (realistic) traffic patterns between client and server
to analyze (monitor) traffic characteristics (jitter, delay, inter
arrival times, etc.).
It would be good if that wanted tool is not onl
Ostinato is an open source tool billed as "a reverse Wireshark" which might
fit your needs. http://ostinato.org/
- jkt
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:44 AM Pablo Lucena
wrote:
> Cisco has an IOS version called Pagent which allows you to craft whatever
> traffic types you want (you can even push MPLS
Ostinato is an open source tool billed as "a reverse Wireshark" which might
fit your needs. http://ostinato.org/
- jkt
--
Jay Turner, Director, CloudRouter DevOps, IIX Inc.
Lead, CloudRouter Project
✉ j...@iix.net ☎: +1-919-633-0619
The information transmitted in this email, including any file
On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6.
netsh interface
I have one extra room at the Fairmont under the NANOG room block rate of
CA$199/night. If you want it before I cancel it, let me know. First
come, first served.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667
hi matthias
On 10/01/15 at 03:41pm, Matthias Flittner wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Currently we are looking for a magic tool with which it is possible to
> generate specific (realistic) traffic patterns between client and server
> to analyze (monitor) traffic characteristics (jitter, delay, int
The room is now spoken for.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Brandon Ross wrote:
I have one extra room at the Fairmont under the NANOG room block rate of
CA$199/night. If you want it before I cancel it, let me know. First come,
first served.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 , Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
>>>
On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start charging
extra
for IPv4 service.
ISP's will not charge too much. With too expensive IPv4 many customers
will migrate from v4/dual stack to v6-only and ISP's will be left with
unused IP
Bill I ran into this same issue some time ago.
I had to move my mail off of Gmail for the same reason. In my case it was on a
shared box with people who were not forwarding to Gmail and was causing issues
for them sending to Gmail.
Gmail really needs a "this server is forwarding email to me" se
>Gmail really needs a "this server is forwarding email to me" setting.
That's what the "pick up mail using POP" feature is for. It works a
lot better.
I've tried a kludge where I run all of the mail to be forwarded through
spamassassin, forward the stuff with squeakly clean low scores, and local
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
>
> On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start charging
>> extra
>> for IPv4 service.
>
> ISP's will not charge too much. With too expensive IPv4 many customers will
> mig
On 29 September 2015 at 13:37, David Hubbard
wrote:
> Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash
> (google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases
> v6-only for the first 48 hours. I bet my lame Brighthouse and Fios
> service would be v6-enabled before t
In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
writes:
>
> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start
> charging extra
> >> for IPv4 se
i'm still confused, to be honest.
why are we 'encouraging' 'evangelizing' or 'forcing' ipv6 adoption.
it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess
we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 08:28:13AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> writes:
> >
> > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > >> However, I think even
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 15:28 , Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> writes:
>>
>>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
However, I think eventually the resid
That reminds me of a story.
Once a teacher gave each of his students a tube of toothpaste. He said
"Squeeze all of the toothpaste out of the tube on to your desk." The kids
laughed and did it, making a giant mess and having a ball. When things
settled down, the teacher said "Now put all of the to
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote:
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
> of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess
> we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons
> learned
I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the
embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's
naive and ignorant in a genius way.
Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can be
properly done.
This was harder but not impossib
In message <20151001232613.gd123...@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk>, Matthew Newton
writes:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote:
> > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
> > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but
On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Todd Underwood wrote:
> i'm still confused, to be honest.
>
> why are we 'encouraging' 'evangelizing' or 'forcing' ipv6 adoption.
>
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest
> of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mis
one interesting thing to note...
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Some of us have been running IPv6 in production for over a decade
> now and developing products that support IPv6 even longer.
>
> We have had 17 years to build up a universal IPv6 network. It
> should have
In message
, Todd
Underwood writes:
> I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the
> embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's
> naive and ignorant in a genius way.
>
> Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can be
>
> That sounds like only using 6to4 addresses until the entire internet
supports IPv6.
> Unfortunately there were NEVER enough IPv4 addresses to actually do that.
We
> were effectively out of IPv4 addresses before we started.
>
People tend to forget that TCP/IP was not the only routing protocol
In message
, Todd Underwood writes:
>
> one interesting thing to note...
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> > Some of us have been running IPv6 in production for over a decade
> > now and developing products that support IPv6 even longer.
> >
> > We have had 17 yea
On 10/1/2015 5:16 PM, Ca By wrote:
I run a large 464xlat dominated mobile network.
IPv4 bits are materially more expensive to deliver.
Isn't that simply a consequence of your engineering decision to use
464xlat instead of native dual-stack, as was originally envisioned for
the transition?
OK… Let’s look at the ASN32 process.
Use ASN 23456 (16-bit) in the AS-Path in place of each ASN32 entry in the path.
Preserve the ASN32 path in a separate area of the BGP attributes.
So, where in the IPv4 packet do you suggest we place these extra 128 bits of
address?
Further, what mechanism do
this is an interesting example of someone who has ill advisedly tied up his
identity in a network protocol. this is a mistake i encourage you all not
to make. network protocols come and go but you only get one shot at life,
so be your own person.
this is ad-hominem, owen and i won't engage. fee
I’m not at all tied up in a particular protocol.
Still, Todd, ignoring the other parts, the least you can do is answer this
simple question:
How would you implement a 128-bit address that is backwards compatible with
existing
IPv4 hosts requiring no software modification on those hosts? Details
Nothing to do with religion at all. I advocate IPv6 all the time as some one
who deals a lot with SIP. The issues are endless when dealing with NAT. NAT is
an ugly hack and should die already. It will take a few years for router
manufactures to get it right but them they do it will be better for
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote:
> > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the
> rest
> > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess
> > we're stuck wi
Yep. Nat is terrible. Dual stack is even worse for end user exclusive.
Clients that migrate back and forth between different protocols at will
(hello Mac OS) are going to be really challenging for everyone, too.
But we didn't get magical, free, simple migration. So we could have done
some kind of
Either there are multiple translation systems that exist that were invented
late or there are not. Either Owen has never heard of any of them or he is
trolling.
In any case I'm giving up on that conversation. And this whole one. It goes
nowhere.
And this is why v6 is where it is: true believers.
On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 10/1/2015 5:16 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
>>
>> I run a large 464xlat dominated mobile network.
>>
>> IPv4 bits are materially more expensive to deliver.
>>
>
> Isn't that simply a consequence of your engineering decision to use
> 464xlat instead
If Time Warner (my ISP) put up IPv6 tomorrow, my firewall would no longer
work. I could put up a pfsnse or vyatta box pretty quickly, but my off the
shelf Cisco/Linksys home router has no ipv6 support hence the need to replace
the hardware. There's no firmware update for it supporting ipv6
RE: How to wish you hadn't rushed ipv6 adoption
Force the whole world to switch to IPv6 within the foreseeable future,
abolish IPv4... all within several years or even within 50 years... and
then watch spam filtering worldwide get knocked back to the stone ages
while spammers and blackhat and
In message <2bb18527-2f9c-4fee-95dd-3f89919a8...@xyonet.com>, Curtis Maurand wr
ites:
> If Time Warner (my ISP) put up IPv6 tomorrow, my firewall would no longer wo
> rk. I could put up a pfsnse or vyatta box pretty quickly, but my off the sh
> elf Cisco/Linksys home router has no ipv6 support
On 10/1/2015 11:18 PM, corta...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be
preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and
just drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to
vet anyone creating a new email server,
In message <560df4ba.5000...@invaluement.com>, Rob McEwen writes:
> RE: How to wish you hadn't rushed ipv6 adoption
>
> Force the whole world to switch to IPv6 within the foreseeable future,
> abolish IPv4... all within several years or even within 50 years... and
> then watch spam filtering wo
On Thu 2015-Oct-01 18:28:52 -0700, Damian Menscher via NANOG
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote:
> it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the
rest
> of the internet. it's unf
On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's
rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's
still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR's so
their isn't infinite numbers of sites that a spammer can ge
On 10/1/2015 11:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
And blocking at the /48 level WOULD cause too much collateral damage
if don't indiscriminately.
I meant, "if done indiscriminately"
excuse my other more minor typos too. I get in a hurry and my fingers
don't always type what my brain is thinking :)
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's
>> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's
>> still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR'
In message <560e00d4.7090...@invaluement.com>, Rob McEwen writes:
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's
> > rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's
> > still need to justify their address space allo
On 10/2/2015 12:18 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
A hoster can get /48's for each customer. Each customer is technically
a seperate site. It's this stupid desire to over conserve IPv6
addresses that causes this not IPv6.
In theory, yes. In practice, I'm skeptical. I think many will
sub-delegate /64
In message <560e0c44.5060...@invaluement.com>, Rob McEwen writes:
> On 10/2/2015 12:18 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > A hoster can get /48's for each customer. Each customer is technically
> > a seperate site. It's this stupid desire to over conserve IPv6
> > addresses that causes this not IPv6.
>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 09:23:59AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 26/Sep/15 16:34, David Hubbard wrote:
> > Has anyone run into this? Our users on other platforms don't seem to
> > have this issue; linux and MS desktops seem to just use v6 if it's
> > available and v4 if not.
>
> I have been track
On 10/2/2015 1:10 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
or working out how many addresses a
site needs when handing out address blocks
At first, I'm with you on this.. but then when you got to the part I
quoted above...
it then seems like dividing lines can get really blurred here and this
statement migh
You make a point, but those ipv6 addresses would not be a available to my cpe.
I would agree that if your cpe is less than 5 years old, it should support
ipv6.
On October 2, 2015 12:30:56 AM ADT, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>In message <2bb18527-2f9c-4fee-95dd-3f89919a8...@xyonet.com>, Curtis
>Mau
67 matches
Mail list logo
