> -Original Message-
> From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 August 2011 2:30 PM
> To: Chris Adams; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
>
> When I send someone on site to do work for me, I don't want to have to
> prepare excessive instructions
Can heavily recommend Freescout
Cameron
- Original message -
From: Pascal Masha
To: nanog
Subject: Free(opensource) Ticketing solutions
Date: Monday, 27 May 2024 18:28
Hello,
Which free and good ticketing systems do you folks(for those who do) use?
Regards,
Paschal Masha
oncerned about latency, the key is working with the
wireless operator to find where the mobility aggregation points are
and how they are connected to the Internet. More advanced
applications at large scale can justify direct peering, but i don't
imagine that achieves much real latency benefits
to find out information regarding there peering policy.
>
You can contact me off-list for T-Mobile USA questions.
Cameron
d a large contributor to the slow adoption of
>> IPv6.
It's the old story, pay a little now to have an IPv6 plan and get the
wheels moving. Or, be caught flat footed, and pay a lot later in
forklift upgrades and lost customers.
Cameron
==
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
==
email, ...), somethings don't (skype ..)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmjlptEva4Y#t=1h32m26s
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12
http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca/
As your major NAT vendor, they probably have NAT64 in the road map for
the next 6 to 12 months.
IPv4->IPv6 initiated connection are a lost cause that cannot scale in
any good way.
Cameron
are
already doing.
If a major service provider rolls out IPv6-only devices and services
(and they are / will, because IPv4 is out) they will not make a
special case for you. So, what you really need to do is figure out if
your applications and content work via NAT64 and come up with a good
plan for going IPv6 in the long run. It's all about your risk
tolerance
Cameron
=
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
=
e in E2E communication
(less cost, better quality). Since economics and user experience are
involved, this is a real path to migrating from IPv4 to IPv6. The
right incentive structure is in place for both the service provider
who is out of addresses and the consumer who wants rich e2e
communication.
Shameless plug, i have it working here for over 9 months
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
Cameron
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 09:42:50AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:20 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: Christopher Morrow
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> Curious as to who is running IPv6 with TW Telecom or Cogent.
> I'm wanting to turn up native IPv6 with them, And wanted to hear
> thoughts/experiences.
> I assume it should be a "non-event". We've already got a prefix from arin
> that we are goi
with NAT64/DNS64 as truly connecting the
IPv4 long-tail remaining 50% that will continue to shrink as more
major sites follow the CNN's path.
Cameron
===
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
===
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> On 11/18/2010 5:14 PM, Lee Riemer wrote:
>>> Try tracerouting to 2001:500:4:13::81 (www.arin.net) or
>>> 2001:470:0:76::2 (www.he.net) via Cogent.
>>
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> On 21-11-10 22:31, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> Yahoo just dropped in on the IPv6 content party
>> http://ipv6.weather.yahoo.com/
>> I just bookmarked it. Well done Yahoos.
>
> Well,
>
> ipv6.ycpi.o
Other sites will go directly to opening the flood
gates depending on their user profiles. There is a lot of great work
going on to see what the risk is for opening to all users
http://www.fud.no/ipv6/
Here is one take on the discussion of whitelist
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-dns-whitelisting-implications-01
Cameron
==
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
==
>
>
>
ched via
wifi it is like being attached via the home network from a billing
perspective. While on WiFi, voice, txt, and web all work. For me, it
is a reasonable compromise when compared to roaming fees.
Shameless plug http://tinyurl.com/2vqzcrv
And, for the IPv6 enthusiast, the Nokia E73 does both GAN (wifi
calling) and IPv6 on T-Mobile's 3G network (but not together...
beta...)
Cameron
(not an unbiased source of information on america's largest 4G network)
> Owen
>
>
>
pt the "v4 is done" mindset and work going
> forward on that premise.
>
+1
Good luck with that /27 of 1.0.0.0/8 space
At the edge, with the down economy, i bet there are plenty of folks
that are only accept /21s and shorter from their upstream ISP so they
can get some more mileage out of their older gear.
Cameron
a mature and sane IPv6 world.
LISP may have value in a immature and insane IPv4 and IPv6 world.
Cameron
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/8/2010 11:23, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> At the edge, with the down economy, i bet there are plenty of folks
>> that are only accept /21s and shorter from their upstream ISP so they
>> can get some more mile
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> I still fail to see the value of LISP in a mature and sane IPv6 world.
>
> Abstraction of the global routing table away from direct dependence upon the
>
rom a users perspective.
Cameron
ps. T-Mobile USA has an IPv6 beta with nokia device http://bit.ly/9s0Ed3
pps. 22 pages of reviews and such focused on the N900 operating with
IPv6 here http://goo.gl/cUUga
ress an a 10.x.x.x IPv4 address. So, true to claim, the new LTE
service available today on USB sticks is production dual-stack.
Bravo!
Cameron
==
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
==
eaningful volume being sent on the network
Cameron
>
> joel
>
>> On Dec 28, 2010 1:26 PM, "Cameron Byrne" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:49:37 E...
>> Just to update the group, a helpful perso
ents that will be deployed this year
http://groups.google.com/group/ipv4literals
Cameron
=
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
=
>
> Roland Dobbins // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
> Most
you know
others, strengthen your case and add them to the list so that all
parties can benefit. Otherwise, it is just a few poorly designed
internet services that will be in a rush to fix services when users
complain or there web pages hits start trending down while their
c
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 1/5/2011 8:47 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> And, you will notice that the list at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/ipv4literals shows only a few web site,
>> because there are only a few that have this des
ew that comes out,
that is one less destination requiring state in my network.
Cameron
>> Cameron
>>
>> >
>> > Matthew Kaufman
>> >
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
>
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 1/5/2011 9:39 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> I understand my users pretty well, they only go to a few web pages ...
>> its the nature of the net. I assure you, i am not taking any undue
>> risk with regard
ew
partnerships to make this work. When you are ready to talk about
moving forward, i am all ears. Until then, you can keep posturing
while the clock ticks on committed deployments. If you know it's
coming and don't have a solution, if you strategically choose to play
that game of chicken, thats fine too, it's a calculated risk that my
business has made.
Cameron
> Matthew Kaufman
>
>
>
On Jan 12, 2011 7:50 PM, "Richard Barnes" wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from
> peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and
> we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of
> this (probably around 10). I
s10.4/information-products/topic-collections/nce/nat64-ipv6-ipv4-depletion/configuring-nat64-ipv6-ipv4-depletion.pdf
aka http://tinyurl.com/4qxjahk
If you are talking about servers, not users, most of the commercial
load balancers have NAT64 functions for the IPv6 user to IPv4 legacy
server us
On Jan 21, 2011 6:49 PM, "Pete Carah" wrote:
>
> On 01/21/2011 04:29 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > On Friday, January 21, 2011 04:23:52 pm Michael Holstein wrote:
> >> Aren't CDMA BTS clocked off GPS?
> > Yep; and many of the aftermarket GPS receivers commonly used for the
disciplined clock for NTP or
On Jan 30, 2011 9:03 AM, "Glen Kent" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to understand why there is a preference for L3 VPNs over
> L2 VPNs for the EPC backhaul networks? We can use both layer 2 and
> layer 3 VPNs for communication between the eNodeB and the MME or S-GW,
> so why is it that most provi
On Jan 30, 2011 10:11 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>/
>> There are just more companies offering L2 metroE than L3 in the backhaul
space. I have pushed for L3 but very few offer the speeds and reach
required
>
>
>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> The only way to reach 2000 cell sites in Chicago with 100megs of Ethernet
>> handoff is with L2 metroE. There is not a feasible L3 service offered
>> today.
&g
like RFC 1918 (truly impossible) that I fully engaged in
doing IPv6. Now, we are pretty close to launching an IPv6-only + NAT64
service to mobile customer.
Cameron
===
T-Mobile USA IPv6 Beta -> http://bit.ly/9s0Ed3
===
e?
>
You might be asking the wrong person for advice or reasoning.
Horses for courses. ULAs have a place.
Cameron
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
>> On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
>> > Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits
>> > internal addressing to be independent of external addressing.
>> >
>> Which is a b
On Jun 14, 2011 10:36 PM, "Ryan Finnesey" <
ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com> wrote:
>
> I think this would be helpful.
>
Agreed. You don't need anybody's permission, kick it off.
The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or
your own.
Cb
> Cheers
> Ryan
>
>
> --
laim space by switching your peerings to /31s where possible.
If you go down the private space route, make sure you and your peers
know about "next hop self"
Cameron
On Jun 20, 2011 9:47 AM, "Christopher Pilkington" wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> > internet connectivity, and that much $ is at stake, you're stupid if you
don't have some redundancy. Nothing works all the time forever.
>
> I can't consider Cogent even a redundant
On Jun 25, 2011 6:04 PM, "Deric Kwok" wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Can we use same AS to advertise different networks in different location?
>
> We would like to use Seattle as production network and New York as testing
>
> eg:
> Seattle: network 66.49.130.0/24
>
> New York: network 67.55.129.0/24 and ipv6 n
lts overcoming longish RTT by
using the Hybla TCP algorithm http://hybla.deis.unibo.it/
I am hoping it gets more default traction, especially in wireless
where the radio link is a pretty big latency source
Cameron
> --
> Leigh
>
>
> ___
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Leigh Porter
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 28 June 2011 16:53
>> To: Leigh Porter
>> Cc: Andreas Ott; Eugen Leitl; williamejs...@googlemail.com; NANOG l
the USA
have transparent TCP proxies in place.
My point was that if end-hosts had Hybla or something similar, these
proxies can be removed providing a better end-to-end solution.
Cameron
> As for VSAT, most every vsat equipment manufacturer has TCP
> acceleration/proxy support built i
On Jun 29, 2011 6:00 AM, "Ryan Malayter" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 3:35 pm, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> >
> > AFAIK, Verizon and all the other 4 largest mobile networks in the USA
> > have transparent TCP proxies in place.
>
> Do you have a referen
On Jun 28, 2011 10:22 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> My point was that if end-hosts had Hybla or something similar, these
proxies can be removed providing a better end-to-end solution.
>
>
> Well, then you run
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a vendor specific issue :(
>
> Absolutely, but this is way too typical for these kinds of networks.
>
>> Good tcp vs default tcp will not close t
ork operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they have
customers to support and businesses to run, and they don't have thumb
wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game.
Cameron
> Ron
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Le
7;m not advocating any exclusions.
>
W.R.T. to LISP, in defense of the IETF or the IRTF, i do not believe
"the IETF" has told the world that LISP is the best fit for the
Internet or solves any specific problem well.
The IETF has never said the "Internet Architecture" is go
On Jul 12, 2011 2:33 PM, "Tom Ammon" wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> We're pushing to get IPv6 deployed and working everywhere in our
operation, and I had some questions about best practices for a few things.
>
> On your management nets (network device management nets) , what's the best
approach for addres
On Jul 12, 2011 5:21 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
>
> > W.R.T. to LISP, in defense of the IETF or the IRTF, i do not believe
> > "the IETF" has told the world that LISP is the best fit for the
> > Internet or solves any specific problem well.
> >
> > The IETF has never said the "Internet Architecture"
On Jul 12, 2011 6:42 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
>
> In message <56e0fb8f-bb53-4db0-829b-39dfbab48...@bogus.com>, Joel Jaeggli
write
> s:
> >
> > On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > >=20
> > > On Jul 12, 2011,
reduce issues in global
> routing and local renumbering" space (that's part of what LISP does).
>
> Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
> things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
> When you finally do, considering
On Jul 13, 2011 7:50 AM, "Seth Mos" wrote:
>
> Op 13-7-2011 16:09, Randy Bush schreef:
> > > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
>
> The free Open Source FreeBSD based pfSense firewall supports this. Not
> everyone can get BGP, specifically calling out residential connections
here.
On Jul 26, 2011 6:57 AM, "harbor235" wrote:
>
> I am curious what is the best practice for OOB for a core
> infrastructure environment. Obviously, there is
> an OOB kit for customer managed devices via POTS, Ethernet, etc ... And
> there is OOB for core infrastructure
> typically a separate basic
On Jul 26, 2011 7:58 AM, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
> custome
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:11 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
>
> What about routers ? In some locations, users may have only the choice of
> cellular broadband instead of DSL, cable or fiber.
>
>From an architectural perspective, mobile broadband routers are
tr
On Aug 6, 2011 2:11 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
> I'm not the only person who prefers /48 and hopefully most ISPs will
eventually
> come around and realize that /56s don't really benefit anyone vs. /48s.
>
> Hurricane Electric has been handing out /48s upon request to our customers
and
> users of o
On Aug 8, 2011 4:24 PM, "Christopher Morrow"
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Scott Helms
wrote:
> > Not trying to be obtuse, but none of the technical docs you cite appear
to
> > talk about HTTP proxies nor does the newswire report have any technical
> > details. I have tested severa
On Aug 10, 2011 7:45 PM, "Mark Newton" wrote:
>
>
> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an allocation
> > will have that effect. I would rather we steer the internet deployment
> > towards liberal enough allocations to avoid
On Aug 11, 2011 5:25 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>
> >
> > On 11/08/2011, at 1:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
On Aug 12, 2011 8:40 PM, "Ryan Finnesey" wrote:
>
> Well they are two completely separate companies . I would think that the
> LTE network would be a good replacement for DS1 type services.
>
My guess is no.
Yes, I bet vzw buys from vzb, but not the other way round. Whatever you call
the vz LEC
On Aug 15, 2011 2:15 PM, "Tim Wilde" wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?
> >
> > I really don't see a significant difference in that regard.
>
> I will admit to not having
On Aug 16, 2011 9:41 AM, wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:53:24 EDT, Christopher Morrow said:
>
> > anyway, they do these donkey things because they can :( people have no
> > real option (except not to play the game, ala war games).
>
> My brother recently tried to get a smartphone without a data
On Aug 17, 2011 6:58 AM, "Justin M. Streiner"
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> What would you rather rely on at 3am in the morning when things are
>>> breaking? Someone who has just learned IS-IS or someone who already
>>> has good experience with OSPF?
>>
>>
>> what would
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 01:57:36PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>> as you can see, i am interested in
>> o loc/id separation
>> o rounting table scaling
>> o deployability on the internet
>> o current state of development
>>
>> what did i
pps? What other options do we have?
>
Yes, expect it to be deployed in places where the access gear can only
do IPv4 and there is no money or technology available to bring in
IPv6.
Cameron
>
> Thanks,
> Serge
>
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 9/7/11 09:02 , Michael Holstein wrote:
>>
>>> I would love a world where engineering was consulted by marketing :(
>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't be a problem is management invested based on engineering's
>> recommendations.
>>
>> There are few problems
On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter" wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> > Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22
> > To: Leigh Porter
> > Cc: Seth Mos; NANOG
> > Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
> >
> > > Considering that offices, schools etc regularly ha
On Sep 9, 2011 10:54 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> > GPRS/3G/EDGE has made many a mobile provider especially notorious.
>
> All this problematic state should be broken up into smaller instantiations
and distributed as close to the access edge
On Sep 11, 2011 4:33 AM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> > I'd agree that, usually, distributed is better but these are not
distributed networks, there is a single point (or a few large single points)
of contact.
>
> The point is that these aggrega
On Sep 10, 2011 11:38 PM, "Damian Menscher" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Marcus Reid
wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:17:10AM -0700, Network IP Dog wrote:
> > > I like this response; instant CA death penalty seems to p
On Sep 17, 2011 10:41 AM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
>
> As an ISP, ARIN will not give you any space if you are new. You
> have to already have an equivalent amount of space from another
> provider.
> >>> does arin *really* still have that amazing barrier to market
> >>> entry?
> >> Yes.
On Sep 18, 2011 1:08 PM, "Benson Schliesser" wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 15:51, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> I'm told of others that have bought legacy IPv4 prefixes with no
> >> intention of updating whois at this time - no desire to enter into a
> >> relationship with ARIN and be subjected to
On Sep 20, 2011 7:54 PM, "Joseph Gersch" wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if Akamai edgesuite servers rate limits or blacklists
caching servers that query it too often? It appears that queries are timing
out if we exceed a query load to edgesuite.
>
> Does anyone at Akamai know if there are any chang
On Sep 21, 2011 4:43 PM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2011 7:54 PM, "Joseph Gersch"
wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if Akamai edgesuite servers rate limits or blacklists
Just an fyi for anyone who has a marketing person dreaming up a big nxdomain
redirect business cases, the stats are actually very very poor... it does
not make much money at all.
It is very important to ask the redirect partners about yields... meaning,
you may find that less than 5% of nxdomain r
On Sep 26, 2011 1:29 AM, "Florian Weimer" wrote:
>
> * Cameron Byrne:
>
> > It is very important to ask the redirect partners about yields...
meaning,
> > you may find that less than 5% of nxdomain redirects can be actually
served
> > an ad page because 95%
esearching this off and on all weekend but wondered if anyone
>> else had run into this issue.
>>
>
>
> I use often use PPTP on my original HTC EVO. Just tested it now and it
> worked. 3G only, no 4G in my city.
>
I have seen MTU issues with PPTP on cellular networks before with
Android. You might want to try clamping the MTU down on the server
side.
Cameron
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 10/13/11 3:30 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> In fact, Skype, just as a for instance, is worse on hotel wifi as launching
>>> the app on a laptop makes you a middle node for s
On Oct 31, 2011 9:13 PM, "Jack Bates" wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2011 11:00 PM, Scott Whyte wrote:
>>
>> But seriously, if you can help her ascertain real middlebox use cases
she wants to help improve that segment of networking via useful research,
nothing more or less.
>
>
> Would love to see the result
WiFi and LTE.
Cameron
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Tom Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 15:04 -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> FYI.
>>
>> T-Mobile USA now has opt-in beta support for an Android phone on IPv6,
>> more info here https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch
>
> Ve
On Nov 6, 2011 10:15 PM, "David Hubbard"
wrote:
>
> Hi all, I am looking at cellular-based devices as a higher
> speed alternative to dial-up backup access methods for
> out of band management during emergencies. I was
> wondering if anyone had experiences with such devices
> they could share?
>
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2011-11-09 17:32 , Brzozowski, John wrote:
>> Update from http://www.comcast6.net
>> IPv6 Pilot Market Deployment Begins
>> Wednesday, November 9, 2011
>>
>> Comcast has started our first pilot market deployment of IPv6...
>
> Congrats! One
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bonomi
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:36:43 -0500, Jason Lewis
>> wrote;
>>> http://www.redtigersecurity.com/security-briefings/2011/9/16/scada-vendors-use-public-routable-ip-addresses-by-defa
On Nov 14, 2011 9:22 PM, wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:06:13 EST, William Herrin said:
>
> > Using two firewalls in serial from two different vendors doubles the
> > complexity. Yet it almost always improves security: fat fingers on one
> > firewall rarely repeat the same way on the second and
On Nov 15, 2011 7:09 AM, "-Hammer-" wrote:
>
> Guys,
>Everyone is complaining about whether a FW serves its purpose or not.
Take a step back. Security is about layers. Router ACLs to filter
whitenoise. FW ACLs to filter more. L7 (application) FWs to inspect HTTP
payload. Patch management at th
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Mikael
> Abrah
> amsson writes:
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>> > I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact,
>> > both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo "ready". Unlike ISP's by and
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike wrote:
> On 11/26/12 8:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact,
>>> both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo "ready". Unlike ISP's by and large.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 11:58 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong?
>>>
&
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 27, 2012 8:39 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, mike wrote:
>
>> You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99%
certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all the
time and they're almost definitely wh
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 27, 2012 10:57 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> Verizon in the USA does have iOS on ipv6. Afaik, the network must ask for
>> it the same way all Android Samsung devices on t-mo
Got some bad data here. Let me help.
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 29, 2012 8:22 AM, "Michael Thomas" wrote:
> Phone apps, by and large, are designed by people in homes or
> small companies. They do not have v6 connectivity. Full stop.
> They don't care about v6. Full stop. It's not their
> "Everything you need to know" except for how to actually accomplish this
> task in the real world.
>
> In order to accomplish this in the real world using present-day software
> development methodologies you would need to do a few more things:
> - Generate some user stories that explain why the I
I've had issues getting to it for a week or so. Their NOC was
unresponsive when queried.
On 2012-12-28 8:23 pm, Peter Ehiwe wrote:
I normally use the 3rd one you mentioned but they seem to be down at
the
moment.
Rgds Peter,
Sent from my Asus Transformer Pad
On Dec 28, 2012 1:51 AM, "Tassos C
Constantine,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint wrote:
>> From the article:
>>
>> "Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
>> off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network add
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Warren Bailey"
>
>> We as Americans have plenty of things we have done halfass.. I hope an
>> Internet kill switch doesn't end up being one of them. Build your own
>> private networks, you can't get root
Hi,
In-line
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> Dear experts,
>
> I've found myself thinking about what ground an engineer needs to cover in
> order to convince the executives to approve and commit to an IPv6
> Deployment project.
>
> I think such a presentation (15 slides ma
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. wrote:
>
>> I would lean towards
>>
>> f) Cost/benefit of deploying IPv6.
>>
>
> I certainly agree, which is why I propose understanding you organisation's
> business model and how specifically v4 exh
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
