Mike Hammett wrote:
" With plain IP routers?"
Yes, or, well, relatively plain, depending on the implementation.
As completely plain routers have no difficulty to treat a
default route, it is a waste of money and effort to try to
have not so plain routers to do so regardless of whether the
r
I can say with certainty at least one downlink location is not using Google
Fiber, as I am sitting about 1/2 mile from it , and have firsthand
knowledge of all glass in the ground around here.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:14 AM Dave Taht wrote:
> I maintain an email list for issues specific to sta
Starlink has nothing to do with Google Fiber. It used to use Google Cloud
for routing (BYOIP) in the early days but I am sure this has changed.
Eric
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:51 AM Tom Beecher wrote:
> I can say with certainty at least one downlink location is not using
> Google Fiber, as I am
I don't even know where this conversation has gone anymore.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Masataka Ohta"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: "nanog list" , "Matthew Walster"
Sent: Wednesday,
Here's their new stuff:
https://bgp.he.net/AS14593
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Dugas via NANOG"
To: "Tom Beecher"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 10
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 01:04:28PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I don't even know where this conversation has gone anymore.
You have reached a terminal point in the NANOG mailing list state
machine: NOP-ARGUE
Many paths lead to this state, and it isn't unique to NANOG.
The sub-state is: I-TH
Hi,
Would someone from AS3491 please contact me off-list?
Been trying to fix a prefix acceptance issue for weeks and am getting nowhere.
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron,
> Would someone from AS3491 please contact me off-list?
if you find one, plesae share...
Thx,
Elmar.
*Experience Atlanta at NANOG 87! *
*Special Offers, Things To Do, Transportation, Dining, + More *
NANOG 87 will take place in Atlanta, GA 13 - 15 February.
*The City of Atlanta* will provide discounts for dining and activities for
our NANOG community. Discover Atlanta, check out the best ways to
Hi John,
So, It was assumed that IPv4 depletion would effectively lead to the
adoption of IPv6. This has not been the case in the last decade save for a
very few countries in the world.
It was also assumed that IPv6 only networks would crop all over the place
as a result, providing the same inter
Noah -
It was assumed that IPng would include a standard straightforward technological
solution to support communication with IPv4 hosts – this was a defined hard
requirement.
This transition mechanism wasn’t available at the time of the selection of
IPng, and instead was left as a future del
> It was assumed that IPng would include a standard straightforward
> technological solution to support communication with IPv4 hosts – this
> was a defined hard requirement.
>
> This transition mechanism wasn’t available at the time of the
> selection of IPng, and instead was left as a future del
Randy -
Full agreement - nicely said.
/John
P.s disclaimer: my views alone - do not eat packet.
> On Jan 11, 2023, at 7:10 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It was assumed that IPng would include a standard straightforward
>> technological solution to support communication with IPv4 hosts –
On January 12, 2023 at 02:11 n...@neo.co.tz (Noah) wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> So, It was assumed that IPv4 depletion would effectively lead to the adoption
> of IPv6. This has not been the case in the last decade save for a very few
> countries in the world.
>
> It was also assumed that IPv6
Randy Bush wrote:
three of the promises of ipng which ipv6 did not deliver
o compatibility/transition,
o security, and
o routing & renumbering
You miss a promise of
o ND over ATM/NBMA
which caused IPv6 lack a notion of link broadcast.
Hello Masataka-san
For that issue at least there was some effort.
Though ATM and FR appear to be long gone, the problem got even worse with
pseudo wires / overlays and wireless.
It was tackled in the IoT community 10+ years ago and we ended up with RFC 8505
and 8928. This is implemented in LoWP
The comment looks outdated: Who cares now about ATM?
But all wireless (including WiFi) emulate broadcast in a very unsatisfactory
way.
Hence, the requirement is still very accurate.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
Behalf Of M
17 matches
Mail list logo
