RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

That does not need to be long, Abe. There’s no minimal interval between version. I already published 01… And I do not have a special address format beyond what’s in the draft already. It’s only IPv4 and IPv6. No new address format. Just assigned ranges, and well known IIDs. To your point: the a

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Hi, Ant: 1)    " ...  darknet ...  ":    I am not aware of this terminology. Nonetheless, I believe that bringing in a not commonly known word into a discussion like this is just distraction tactic. 2)    " ...  progress ...  ":    EzIP proposes a parallel cyberspace to the current Internet

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Your take on English history is a delightful fantasy but it is just that a delightful fantasy. Norman barons were not typically concerned with the health of their anglo saxon/british serfs / yoemen other than providing the required tithes. But taking you at what seems to be your intention. Speak

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Hi, Pascal: 0)    As the good old saying stated: "A picture is worth one thousand words." Let's take advantage of such a teaching. 1)    Focusing at just the text before and after Figure 1 of your below draft, I found: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt-01

Re: V6 still not supported

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 6:37 AM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > > If you make the stateful NATs static, that is, each > private address has a statically configured range of > public port numbers, it is extremely easy because no > logging is necessary for police grade audi

Unsolicited marketing (was: Re: Cogent ...)

On 31 Mar 2022, at 12:11 PM, Laura Smith via NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: ... The ironic thing is they demand NDAs and yet they don't comply with requests to stop unsolicited marketing despite written historical promises that they would. While I cannot speak to their marketing practices

TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40 hours until potentially significant routing changes (re: Retirement of ARIN Non-Authenticated IRR scheduled for 4 April 2022)

NANOGers - As previously reported here, ARIN will be shutting down the ARIN-NONAUTH IRR database on Monday, 4 April 2022 at 12:00 PM ET. It is quite likely that some network operators will see different route processing as a result of this change, as validation against the ARIN-NONAUTH IRR dat

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Hi, Christian: 1)    I am a person who normally does not do hearsay. This was why I put the unverified "street legend" about ancient Lord in parentheses to just hint the possible extreme. Without it, the flow of my short story really does not change. Since you spotted on it, I went back to sea

Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

I've been seeing a long thread about why ipv6 adoption isn't there yet. This is half a "paging someone with clue" post and half a "...really, guys?" Picard-facepalm post. I just (earlier this week) had to disable ipv6 outbound on one of $dayjob's MX servers, because Gmail, who hosts nanog.org,

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

Hi Dan, Hope the rest of the world is treating you decently! There are a lot of bits and bobs that one has to get right for mail to flow, amongst which: - IP -> PTR lookup -> that hostname lookup, and match to IP again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-confirmed_reverse_DNS) - SPF -

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

* d...@prime.gushi.org (Dan Mahoney (Gushi)) [Sun 03 Apr 2022, 00:11 CEST]: I've been seeing a long thread about why ipv6 adoption isn't there yet. This is half a "paging someone with clue" post and half a "...really, guys?" Picard-facepalm post. I just (earlier this week) had to disable ipv

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On 4/2/22 3:23 PM, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote: Hi Dan, Hope the rest of the world is treating you decently! There are a lot of bits and bobs that one has to get right for mail to flow, amongst which: - IP -> PTR lookup -> that hostname lookup, and match to IP again (https://en.wiki

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

> On 3 Apr 2022, at 00:29, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 4/2/22 3:23 PM, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> Hope the rest of the world is treating you decently! >> >> There are a lot of bits and bobs that one has to get right for mail to flow, >> amongst which: >> >> - IP -

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On 2 Apr 2022, at 6:23 PM, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote: > There are a lot of bits and bobs that one has to get right for mail to flow, > amongst which: > > - IP -> PTR lookup -> that hostname lookup, and match to IP again > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-confirmed_reverse_DNS) > - SP

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On 4/2/22 3:56 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 3 Apr 2022, at 00:29, Michael Thomas wrote: On 4/2/22 3:23 PM, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote: Hi Dan, Hope the rest of the world is treating you decently! There are a lot of bits and bobs that one has to get right for mail to flow, amongst whi

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Apr 2, 2022, at 5:57 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > > 1)" ... darknet ... ":I am not aware of this terminology. > Nonetheless, I believe that bringing in a not commonly known word into a > discussion like this is jus

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On 4/2/22 4:05 PM, John Curran wrote: On 2 Apr 2022, at 6:23 PM, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote: There are a lot of bits and bobs that one has to get right for mail to flow, amongst which: - IP -> PTR lookup -> that hostname lookup, and match to IP again   (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forwa

Re: [nanog] Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022, Niels Bakker wrote: I also run my own mail server. I had to firewall off Google's MXes for this exact reason: silent and not-so-silent email rejection when offered over IPv6. Every now and then they rotate their IP addresses, which causes mail to get dropped for a while.

Re: [nanog] Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022, Jeroen Massar wrote: Hi Dan, Hope the rest of the world is treating you decently! There are a lot of bits and bobs that one has to get right for mail to flow, amongst which: - IP -> PTR lookup -> that hostname lookup, and match to IP again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

It appears that Michael Thomas said: >> There are a lot of bits and bobs that one has to get right for mail to flow, >> amongst which: >> >> - IP -> PTR lookup -> that hostname lookup, and match to IP again >> - SPF >> - DKIM >> - DMARC Yup. Gmail has made it quite clear that they will

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

It appears that Michael Thomas said: >> Google at least adds ARC headers in Gmail, and did the editing of RFC8617. > >ARC resolves into a previously unsolved problem: reputation. ... No, actually it doesn't, as has been repeatedly explained. ARC addreses the problem that mailing lists do a lousy

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email from poorly configured senders

It appears that Niels Bakker said: >I also run my own mail server. I had to firewall off Google's MXes for >this exact reason: silent and not-so-silent email rejection when >offered over IPv6. I run my own mail server and have no trouble at all delivering mail to Gmail over IPv6. I do have SPF

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On 4/2/22 6:16 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Michael Thomas said: There are a lot of bits and bobs that one has to get right for mail to flow, amongst which: - IP -> PTR lookup -> that hostname lookup, and match to IP again - SPF - DKIM - DMARC Yup. Gmail has made it

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On 4/2/22 6:21 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Michael Thomas said: Google at least adds ARC headers in Gmail, and did the editing of RFC8617. ARC resolves into a previously unsolved problem: reputation. ... No, actually it doesn't, as has been repeatedly explained. ARC addreses the

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

It appears that Michael Thomas said: >> ARC lets the recipient system look back and do what we might call >> retroactive filtering, using info about messages as they arrived at >> the previous forwarder. While it would be nice if lists did a better >> job of spam filtering, they don't, and ARC is

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On 4/2/22 8:01 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Michael Thomas said: ARC lets the recipient system look back and do what we might call retroactive filtering, using info about messages as they arrived at the previous forwarder. While it would be nice if lists did a better job of spam fil

Enhance CG-NAT Re: V6 still not supported

Hi, Matt: 1)    The challenge that you described can be resolved as one part of the benefits from the EzIP proposal that I introduced to this mailing list about one month ago. That discussion has gyrated into this thread more concerned about IPv6 related topics, instead. If you missed that in

Re: [nanog] Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

On Sat, 2 Apr 2022, Michael Thomas wrote: On 4/2/22 6:21 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Michael Thomas said: I'll be eager to see the papers substantiating this. Until then I remain completely skeptical. It's an experimental RFC for a reason. Let's see the data. ARC is not menti

Re: Gmail (thus Nanog) rejecting ipv6 email

I’ve not experienced this problem sending emails via IPv6 to gmail destinations from my personal domain. (delong.com ) Likely this email will, in fact, get sent to GMAIL via IPv6. I do have good SPF and DKIM records and signing and a reasonable DMARC policy set up. If ISC

Re: V6 still not supported

Matthew Petach wrote: Hi Masataka, Hi, One quick question. If every host is granted a range of public port numbers on the static stateful NAT device, what happens when two customers need access to the same port number? I mean static outgoing port number, but your concern should be well kn