> On Mar 23, 2022, at 1:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
>
>Yes, indeed - although there was a fairly large contingent that
> felt IPng would just suddenly take off at depletion of the IPv4 free pool if
> vendors pushed it, and that it?s success was assured even if IPng had no
> benefit over IP
On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote:
> I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure
Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives?
1. Drop ipv6 and replace it with ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or whatever other protocol
that
magically creat
Hi all,
From 10k meters: IPv6 is different from IPv4 only by:
- extension headers
- SLAAC instead of DHCP
Everything else is minor.
Enterprises could easily ignore EH.
Carriers could test EH for closed domains and support.
I do not see a problem with EHs.
Hence, the primary blocking entity for IP
On 24Mar22, Greg Skinner via NANOG allegedly wrote:
> straightforward transition plan
> in-hand working transition strategy
> nor a straightforward transition
Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is logically
impossible. Why anyone thinks such a mythical plan might
Owen DeLong wrote:
The goal of IPv6, IMHO, is to become the next lingua franca of the internet,
eventually rendering IPv4 unnecessary except in small pockets of legacy support.
Hey Owen,
Indeed, having otherwise fallen short of the mark that is what remains.
I agree that has not yet been
Mark Delany wrote:
On 24Mar22, Greg Skinner via NANOG allegedly wrote:
straightforward transition plan
in-hand working transition strategy
nor a straightforward transition
Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is logically
impossible. Why anyone thinks such a myt
Mark Delany wrote:
On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote:
I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure
Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives?
1. Drop ipv6 and replace it with ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or whatever other protocol
Hello Mark:
> Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is
> logically impossible. Why anyone thinks such a mythical plan might yet be
> formulated some 20+ years after deploying any of ipv6, ipv4++ or ipv6-lite is
> absurd.
This is dishonest, considering that I just prove
Hello there,
Several years ago, a friend of mine was working for a large telco and
his job was to detect which clients had the worst networking experience.
To do that, the telco had this hadoop cluster, where it collected _tons_
of data from home users routers, and his job was to use ML to te
John Curran wrote:
The fact that the majority of the network operators don’t use IPv6 is
irrelevant under such victory conditions,
Then, let's have a victory condition for IPv6 that no one use
IPv6 is the victory and all of us are happy.
Masatak
It sounds like the kind of data you can retrieve through TR-069.
To be able to use it, you have to either log on to the router and set the
TR-069 server, or push out the setting via DHCP, which means you need to have
layer 2 access to the device. This limits the ability to apply/change the
set
On 24Mar22, Vasilenko Eduard allegedly wrote:
> Hence, the primary blocking entity for IPv6 adoption is Google: they do not
> support DHCPv6 for the most popular OS.
No. The primary "blocking entity" is that "legacy" ipv4 works just fine and
adopting ipv6
or ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or ipv-magical is
On 24Mar22, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) allegedly wrote:
> Hello Mark:
>
> > Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is
> > logically impossible. Why anyone thinks such a mythical plan might yet be
> > formulated some 20+ years after deploying any of ipv6, ipv4++ or ipv6-li
OK so you really did not read my post, even now. The tech I described was pure
v4. It would pass your gateway.
The only we can talk is that we listen to each other... Quoting the text so you
do not need to look it up:
"
My frustration is that indeed (as a dev guy) we have been trying hard to ser
On 24 Mar 2022, at 5:19 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
>
> On 24Mar22, Greg Skinner via NANOG allegedly wrote:
>
>> straightforward transition plan
>
>> in-hand working transition strategy
>
>> nor a straightforward transition
The words quoted above are mine, not Greg’s, so let’s send the blame in my
This is an enormous problem, see:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/10/ftc-staff-report-finds-many-internet-service-providers-collect-troves-personal-data-users-have-few
Consumers should have legal say in how or wether their data are harvested and
also sold.
Ms. Lady Benj
I'm surprised we're having this discussion about an internet device that
the customer is using to publicize all of their information on Facebook and
Twitter. Consumers do not care enough about their privacy to the point
where they are providing the information willingly.
>Consumers should have le
Without disagreeing that privacy concerns in general are rapidly becoming
extinct with generations…
Surely you are not suggesting that my friends-only Facebook profile is somehow
publishing my WiFi SSID?
(For example)
Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LL
Friends only Facebook? Do you think Facebook, the company with the data,
cares if you have a particular flag set???
Who cares about the SSID???
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <
l...@6by7.net> wrote:
> Without disagreeing that privacy concerns in general ar
Who cares about the SSID???
I don't remember the data model, but I remember that they retrieved data
very often, multiple times a minute.
(some ppl in the list may have access to this data and know it very well)
They can easily profile you and know when you're at home, and when
you're go
> Given the tremendous growth of video conferencing which strains the
upstream, I wonder how many calls ISP's are getting because the
"internet is slow" which is attributable to bufferbloat. Is there really
anything that ISP can do if they don't supply the ÇPE? What percentage
of
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:26:31AM -0400, Josh Luthman wrote:
> I'm surprised we're having this discussion about an internet device that
> the customer is using to publicize all of their information on Facebook and
> Twitter. Consumers do not care enough about their privacy to the point
> where th
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:04 AM Giovane C. M. Moura via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> > Who cares about the SSID???
>
> I don't remember the data model, but I remember that they retrieved data
> very often, multiple times a minute.
>
>
Please keep in mind that TR-069 (which in all likelihoo
> On Mar 24, 2022, at 7:26 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I'm surprised we're having this discussion about an internet device that the
> customer is using to publicize all of their information on Facebook and
> Twitter. Consumers do not care enough about their privacy to the point where
> the
On 3/24/22 06:26, Josh Luthman wrote:
I'm surprised we're having this discussion about an internet device that
the customer is using to publicize all of their information on Facebook
and Twitter.
That's called informed consent. And Facebook and Twitter use TLS to
protect the data in transit.
French media covered this earlier in March, but I didn't see the english
language reporting until now.
https://www.journaldunet.com/web-tech/cloud/1509749-enquete-sur-l-incendie-d-ovh-des-conclusions-accablantes/
OVH has not released its own report about the fire at its SBG2 datacenter
on March
You don't even have to use their equipment. My provider at home is Charter
/ Spectrum. I own my own cable modem / router ,they have no equipment in
my home. Their privacy policy is pretty standard.
Essentially :
- Anything they can see that I transmit they will collect.
- Anything they can see wh
View of traffic into the ISP with Netflow/etc is very different than all on
my lan traffic.
Tr-069 is bad news.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022, 15:53 Tom Beecher wrote:
> You don't even have to use their equipment. My provider at home is Charter
> / Spectrum. I own my own cable modem / router ,they have
> On Mar 24, 2022, at 04:43 , Mark Delany wrote:
>
> On 24Mar22, Vasilenko Eduard allegedly wrote:
>> Hence, the primary blocking entity for IPv6 adoption is Google: they do not
>> support DHCPv6 for the most popular OS.
>
> No. The primary "blocking entity" is that "legacy" ipv4 works just
> On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Mark Delany wrote:
>> On 23Mar22, Owen DeLong via NANOG allegedly wrote:
>>
>>> I would not say that IPv6 has been and continues to be a failure
>> Even if one might ask that question, what are the realistic alternatives?
>>
>> 1. Dro
> On Mar 24, 2022, at 02:04 , Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>> From 10k meters: IPv6 is different from IPv4 only by:
> - extension headers
> - SLAAC instead of DHCP
> Everything else is minor.
There’s no such thing as SLAAC instead of DHCP… There’s SLACC in addition to
DHC
On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail here. Android
phones are,
indeed, part of the enterprise problem, but not the biggest part.
If this were a purely technical problem, we’d have been done more than a decade
ago.
On 3/24/22 2:13 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
On Mar 24, 2022, at 02:04 , Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
Hi all,
From 10k meters: IPv6 is different from IPv4 only by:
- extension headers
- SLAAC instead of DHCP
Everything else is minor.
There’s no such thing as SLAAC instead of DH
> On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:46 , Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
> On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>
>> Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail here.
>> Android phones are,
>> indeed, part of the enterprise problem, but not the biggest part.
>>
>> If this
On 3/24/22 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:46 , Michael Thomas wrote:
On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail here. Android
phones are,
indeed, part of the enterprise problem, but not the bigges
> On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:49 , Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
> On 3/24/22 2:13 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2022, at 02:04 , Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
From 10k meters: IPv6 is different from IPv4 only by:
>>> - extension headers
>>> - SLAA
> On Mar 24, 2022, at 15:16 , Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
> On 3/24/22 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:46 , Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail her
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon wrote:
In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy.
Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible.
I think this isn’t so much preempting the vacuum as trying to pretend we can
surviv
Michael Thomas wrote:
On 3/24/22 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2022, at 14:46 , Michael Thomas wrote:
On 3/24/22 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail
here. Android phones are,
indeed, part of the enterprise pr
> On Mar 24, 2022, at 15:49, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2022, at 03:36 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my view that takes the form of a multi-pronged strategy.
>>>
>>> Do what it takes to keep IPv4 as usable as possible for as long as possible
Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) via NANOG wrote:
> I'm personally fond of the IP-in-IP variation that filed in 20+ years
> ago as US patent 7,356,031.
No wonder -- you are listed as the co-inventor!
Just the fact that it is patented (and the patent is still unexpired)
would make it a disfavored cand
If anyone from AS21299 is lurking on Nanog. Please reduce your AS prepends for
46.42.196.0/24 from 255 prepends to a more reasonable number of prepends let's
say 20. Thanks!
This is a Kazakhstan register IP Block and ASN
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*> 46.42.196.0/24
Not yet official, but the U.S. intelligence community seems to continue
its rapid release of intelligence. I think everyone was expecting it,
especially since Viasat executives declined to say it earlier this week at
the SATCOM 2022 conference.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-secu
Owen DeLong wrote:
You may be right about not being worth it. More importantly, you may be wrong.
IPv6 is replete with not only a plethora of wrong predictions, but the same
ones over and over again. To be clear, the only effort asked from the unwilling
is to support cutting the red tape
On Mar 24, 2022, at 9:25 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>
> I think that we’re still OK on allocation policies. What I’d like to see is
> an end to the IPv4-think in large ISPs, such as Comcast’s continued micro
> allocations to their customers.
What exactly is your definition of “micro allo
On 3/24/2022 5:43 PM, Erik Sundberg wrote:
If anyone from AS21299 is lurking on Nanog. Please reduce your AS prepends for
46.42.196.0/24 from 255 prepends to a more reasonable number of prepends let's
say 20. Thanks!
This is a Kazakhstan register IP Block and ASN
Network Next Hop Me
I emailed all the contacts listed for their ASN in the RIPE Database. One of
them just respond to me saying they will fix this, so there is some hope that
this will get addressed.
Now that you mentioned it. I remember seeing the previous thread and responding
to it.
Erik
Hello John
You’ve got something dead wrong about the history of IPR, there’s certainly no
idea of monopoly.
What we do when there’s market interest is write an RFC and RAND the rights.
There is 25 years of IETF history to prove that.
Another angle is that the change is in the host stack for
48 matches
Mail list logo
