John Levine wrote:
> FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be
> useful it would require that every host on the Internet update its
> network stack, which would take on the order of a decade...
Those network stacks were updated for 240/4 in 2008-2009 -- a decade
ago.
Hello,
We've introduced Cogent network in Equinix Honk Kong DC. But seems via that
link we're just receiving just only 5% of our traffic, other part of
incoming traffic is received via our other ISPs like NTT, Simcentrc, and
Equinix IXP.
I know it's very naïve to expect the traffic load balance
Hi, Stephen:
1) First, logistics: Since I have been waiting for the moderation of
my first posting on NANOG, could I assume that you are sending me this
personal eMail as a Moderator?
2) Perhaps the material provided in my writing was not sufficient,
you seem to be expressing concerns
>
> It doesn't take any OS upgrades for "getting everything to work on
> IPv6". All the OS's and routers have supported IPv6 for more than a
> decade.
>
There are lots of vendors, both inside and outside the networking space,
that have consistently released products with non-existant or broken IP
On 09/03/2022 00:25, Tom Beecher wrote:
The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where
there is some forcing event that requires it to be.
In about two years time, IPv4 addresses will be worth on the order of
$100/IP, assuming current trends hold.
That's a lot of re
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:22:49 -0500
Tom Beecher wrote:
> > It doesn't take any OS upgrades for "getting everything to work on
> > IPv6". All the OS's and routers have supported IPv6 for more than a
> > decade.
> >
>
> There are lots of vendors, both inside and outside the networking space,
> th
Mr. Chen:
Would you please stop changing the subject line with an added date stamp
every time you post? It fouls threaded email readers and is most
inconsiderate.
In addition, I respectfully encourage you to trim the recipients to just
the mailnig list and the specific individual to whom you are
Tim,
On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe wrote:
> Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported
> v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs.
Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but despite hearing this with some
frequency, I haven’t seen much data to corrobora
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote:
Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they
tried it and it works.
Sounds like an excellent reason not to try to use it for global unicast.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Du
Alternatively, just use BCC. There is no reason for you to tell us who else you
want to hear what you say. There’s nothing wrong with CCing, and nothing in the
rules against it, but your recipients may not appreciate you distributing their
email addresses on this list, to which they are not a me
Also, Mr. Chen, if your intent is to give your CC recipients copies of our
discussions on this board, please note that I for one will be deleting any
additional emails you CC. I do not want to disclose to others what I say on
this list. If they want to find out, let them use the online archive,
On 3/7/22 2:14 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
The cost of this software engineering should be minimal.
So basically no solution is offered to what is the showstopper for this
proposal, only a hand wave that it "should be" easy to fix (but that's
everyone else's problem). I mean, I believe this ha
On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:08 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote:
>> Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they
>> tried it and it works.
> Sounds like an excellent reason not to try to use it for global unicast.
When did squatting becom
It appears that David Conrad said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:08 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote:
>>> Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they
>>> tried it and it works.
>> Sounds like an excellent reason not to try
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:38:20 -0800
David Conrad wrote:
> When did squatting become a justification for not allocating
> addresses?
Isn't this essentially the same thing as the DNS name collision problem
ICANN has been studying and discussing? Perhaps scale and potential
for harm is different, bu
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:31 AM Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 3/7/22 2:14 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> > The cost of this software engineering should be minimal.
>
> So basically no solution is offered to what is the showstopper for this
> proposal, only a hand wave that it "should be" easy to fix (bu
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:46:41AM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
> Tim,
>
> On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe wrote:
> > Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported
> > v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs.
>
> Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but desp
On 3/9/22 10:46 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but despite hearing this
with some frequency, I haven’t seen much data to corroborate these
sorts of statements.
My team ran into a bug in Cisco IOS-XR a few years ago wherein IPv6
connected BGP had problems whe
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 09:46:41 -0800
David Conrad wrote:
> Tim,
>
> On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe wrote:
> > Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported
> > v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs.
>
> Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but despite
I am going to attend the WISPA conference in New Orleans next week.
(anyone going?). I don't see any topics related to ipv6 there, nor as
requirements for broadband grants.
I first tried to deploy ipv6 at my wisp 14 years ago, and failed
utterly. Since then, I've kept track of that market, and mos
John,
On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> When did squatting become a justification for not allocating addresses?
> Um, when can I register my .corp and .home domains?
Um, are you suggesting there is sufficiently heavy use of 240/4 to result in a
significant security/stability is
John,
On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:48 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> Isn't this essentially the same thing as the DNS name collision problem
> ICANN has been studying and discussing?
Not really (IMHO). As mentioned to Mr. Levine, what ICANN is concerned about
is really the security/stability implications
It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs. Here in Oregon, Frontier was
recently acquired by Ziply. They're doing massive infrastructure work
and recently started offering symmetrical gigabit FTTH. This is a brand
new greenfield PON deployment. No IPv6. It took being transferred three
times to
Um, are you suggesting there is sufficiently heavy use of 240/4 to
result in a significant security/stability issue if the address space is
allocated? I thought you were arguing too many systems would have to be
updated to even send/receive packets with 240/4 in the source or
destination field
I will be attending also. We should try to do a meetup of the NANOG members
Thank you
Travis Garrison
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Dave
Taht
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:25 PM
To: Tim Howe
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4 NetB
Let me know where and when 😊
Dennis Burgess
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
Need MikroTik Cloud Management: ht
It appears that David Conrad said:
>isn’t very far), 240/4 isn’t sourcing or sinking significant traffic on the
>Internet.
FWIW, my tiny server sees about 20 packets/day from that range. It's not very
much but it's
hard to imagine why I'm seeing any at all.
It's more than I see from 0/8, less
On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs.
I completely agree.
I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing, provisioning,
repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6.
But I believe that any network equipment vendor that is (or has been for
ISP here. Deploying gigabit FTTH. No IPv6.
Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG
wrote:
> On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> > It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs.
>
> I completely agree.
>
> I get
On 3/9/22 12:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs. Here in Oregon, Frontier was
recently acquired by Ziply. They're doing massive infrastructure work
and recently started offering symmetrical gigabit FTTH. This is a brand
new greenfield PON deployment. No IPv6.
On 3/9/22 1:46 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
ISP here. Deploying gigabit FTTH. No IPv6.
Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.
Do customers ever complain about double NAT's?
Mike
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG
wrote:
On 3/9/22 1:01 PM,
IPv4 doesn't require NAT.
But to answer your question, I would say most if not all of the complaints
about NAT/double NAT are the Xbox saying strict nat instead of open. These
complaints are super rare.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:01 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 3/9/22 1:46 PM, Josh Luthman wr
On 3/9/22 2:03 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
IPv4 doesn't require NAT.
But to answer your question, I would say most if not all of the
complaints about NAT/double NAT are the Xbox saying strict nat instead
of open. These complaints are super rare.
CGNat -- which is the alternative -- creates a d
>
> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.
>
Asserting that IPv6 shouldn't be a priority because 'nobody asks for it' is
specious. What if customers saw Cloudflare's "isbgpsafeyet" site and
demented you stop running BGP because it's "unsafe" ? Is that a valid
reason?
Cu
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:46:56 -0500
Josh Luthman wrote:
> ISP here. Deploying gigabit FTTH. No IPv6.
>
> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.
Right. And this view point (which I have /some/ sympathy for) is what
we're up against. The average person doesn't know IP
> On Mar 9, 2022, at 4:39 PM, Tim Howe wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:46:56 -0500
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>
>> ISP here. Deploying gigabit FTTH. No IPv6.
>>
>> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.
>
> Right. And this view point (which I have /some/ sympathy f
On 3/9/22 14:46, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
“We’re waiting for our upstream to support it.” they say (and HE is their
upstream).
Perhaps you should bake them a cake.
--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
Yo Josh!
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:46:56 -0500
Josh Luthman wrote:
> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.
Bull. I have not complained to any corporation in the last 5 years
where the stanard response was not "We've never heard that complaint
before". recently every on
Loose translation:
On 09/03/2022 22:46, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
“We’re working on it.” they say.
"There is only 1.5 of us; we're overworked and underpaid and this allows
us to postpone this workstream for a while."
“We’re waiting for wider adoption.” they say.
"Not enough of you are compla
- On Mar 9, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
wrote:
> ISP here. Deploying gigabit FTTH. No IPv6.
> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.
Don't you think there is a responsibility on those who know the technical
details to do things on b
Over here in AsiaPAC we ran out of readily available IPv4 many years ago. I’ve
been deploying dual stack CGNAT v4 + Public V6 to ISP networks for at least 10
years. Virtually all modern RGW’s and devices (except *** play station) have
supported V6 transparently for many years and the customer’s
*NANOG 85: Call For Presentations *
*Are you a top mind in the industry? *Do you have what it takes to spark
our imagination, encourage dialogue, + drive new solutions to our greatest
networking challenges?
We are now accepting proposals for in-person or remote presentations at all
sessions of NA
Dear Mel & Bill:
0) Thank you for your kind advice.
1) To be honest, I am a bit of lost with multiple comments about my
eMail Header at the same time. Especially, some seem not in agreement
with the other. Rather than opening up a discussion thread, such as
"eMail Header Rules" that for
John Gilmore wrote:
Whatever the IPv6 transition might require, it isn't comparable to the
small effort needed to upgrade a few laggard OS's to support 240/4 and
to do some de-bogonization in the global Internet, akin to what CloudFlare
did for 1.1.1.1.
It may be a good idea to offer 127/8 for
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote:
> I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still
> heavily v4. Mind boggling.
Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll
be the same in 2042, we fucked up and those who come after us pay the
price of the
45 matches
Mail list logo
