On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 22:58 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As a result, most people consider William Leibzon and the Bogon project
> > to be, collectively, the authoritative source for information on whose
> > IP address that is. That's because
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> I would urge potential sponsors to insist that V6 is on the agenda as
> a condition of funding, both meeting sponsors and Beer 'N Gear.
it is possible that vendors might not want that story told on their
behalf... there are still a significant nu
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
> an record. Or even Microsoft ;)
i agree 100%, which is why I posted something similar almost 2 years ago
now :( It'd be very good to get some actual content on v6 that the ma
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >
> > > on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
> > &g
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
> sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
I think you also missed the suggestion that se
On Sun, 27 May 2007, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
> >> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
> >> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
> >> sound to
On Sun, 27 May 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> There are many things in Vista, and hopefully more to come, which prefer
> IPv6 for peer-to-peer. And even if the ISPs don't offer IPv6 at all, hosts
> use 6to4 or Teredo to automatically provide the required IPv6 connectivity.
is there a glo
On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
>
> At 3:30 PM + 5/27/07, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> >what's going to change this in the near future?
>
> At some point in the near future (e.g. 3 to 5 years),
> an ISP is going to be connecting some customers to
> t
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> That said- ARIN is handing out /48's- should we be blocking validly
> assigned networks?
your network might have to to protect it's valuable routing slots. There
are places in the v4 world where /24's are not carried either. So, as Bill
said just cau
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> # traceroute6 www.nanog.org
> traceroute6: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
>
> That would be a start... It took years to get the IETF to eat its own
> dog food, though.
i suspect the merit/nanog folks involved with the server(s)
On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them
> > IPv4/IPv6
> > dual-stack.
>
> What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?
>
> Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy of being
> publicly discusse
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> >> That said- ARIN is handing out /48's- should we be blocking validly
> >> assigned networks?
> >
> > your network might have to to protect it's valuable routing slots. There
> > are places in the v4 world where /24's are not carried either. So, as Bi
On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
>
> ISP's are going to have to actually *lead* the transition
> to IPv6 both in terms of infrastructure and setting
> customer expectations.
and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about
expending opex/capex to do this transition wor
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
>
> > Can anyone think of a
> > reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might
> > cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?
>
> None that I can think of.
branding
On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > > > For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them
> > > > IPv4/IPv6
> > > > dual-stack.
> > >
> > > What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?
> > >
> > > Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> > and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about
> > expending opex/capex to do this transition work. Today the simplest answer
> > is: "if we expend Z dollars on new equipment, and A dollars on IT work we
> > will be able to captu
On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:59 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > > This changeover will not: 1) Fix the routing problem
> > > inherent with present locator/endp
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> > grr, it ain't just buying new equipment, it's IT work, its certification
> > of code/features/bugs, interoperatability. Provisioning, planning,
> > configmanagement training...
> My apologies- I missed the "opex"-I thought you were just referring
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any horror stories about deploying v6?
>
> not horror, just had to back off.
>
> small site. so public servers provide multiple and diverse services.
> if a hostname has a v6 address, then all services must be v6 capable
> because c
On Tue, 29 May 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> However, you can *always* turn on IPsec with IPv6, which is not always true
> for IPv4 (NATs, no end-to-end, etc.).
>
security is not JUST ipsec, and ipsec is not actually included in all
current ipv6 stacks :( (merike has some nice slides on
On Wed, 30 May 2007, David W. Hankins wrote:
> Maybe I'm getting old, but the idea of managing this configuration
> information in my routers sounds like a real chore compared to the
> old DHCP relayed central server model.
not 'old' just 'sane'. or 'taking the same crazypills chris is', your
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> >> # traceroute6 www.nanog.org
> >> traceroute6: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
> >>
> >>
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - -- "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On 6/29/07, Rich Emmings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Topicality: Looks like someone, somewhere intends to be live with IPv6
>
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>
> Mythic Beasts Ltd, IIRC, names their machines after, uh, mythic
> beasts. Which is consistent, but not especially useful..
perhaps a decent other question is: Do I want to let the whole world know
that router X with interfaces of type Y/Z/Q i
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Cat Okita wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> > perhaps a decent other question is: Do I want to let the whole world know
> > that router X with interfaces of type Y/Z/Q is located in 1-wilshire.
> >
> > I suppose on the on
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,134159-c,internetlegalissues/article.html
>
> Note that this is based on their interpretation of EU law.
and a hearty 'good luck' to them... :( I suppose someone could point the
Belgian's over to the Panamanian
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> >> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,134159-c,internetlegalissues/article.html
> >>
> >> Note that this is bas
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> I wonder if they did a proof of concept at all, or if they just read
> the glossies..
Surely you jest? they, of course, did a full scale mock up on their E1
connected lab in belgium. Perish the thought that they may have attempted
anything less. Best o
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
>
> We (Internet Storm Center) are getting scattered reports of Yahoo being
> down, and problems with Verizon's networks. Anybody else seeing this?
and 'verizon' means dsl/fios in this discussion? (cause yahoo looks up to
me, atleast finance.yahoo)
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Mike Callahan wrote:
>
> We have started receiving some reports related to yahoo as well. We're
> seeing some latency it would appear at the Level3 hand-off to yahoo.
>
remember too that www.yahoo.com looks to be akamaized as well so, for
instance when I query: 198.6.1.5 a
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
>
> (One of our earlier reports said that "Verizon" was having network issues,
> but they did not say "which Verizon". Sorry, Chris! :) )
just makes it simpler to ask the right person(s) about issues :) I'm sure
ATT has the same issues as does L3 an
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
>
> If we had routing registries that were accurate and authoritative, then
> soBGP/S-BGP would have something to verify a route change against. It
> should not matter if last Friday's event was a leak or a false announcement
> - with some sort of ver
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:18:25 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
>
> > While S*BGP seem like they may offer additional protections and additional
> > knobs to be used for protecting 'us' from 'them', the
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Kevin Epperson wrote:
>
> There is some misinformation in previous posts that I would like to
> clarify on the Level 3 side of things.
>
and I'd apologize for hinting that that might be the problem :(
> Level 3's own registry and known public route registries. As several
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - -- Christopher Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'd love to see CPE dsl/cable-modem providers integrate with a 'service'
> >that lists out 'bad' things. it'd be nice if the user could even ta
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
first I agree that in most cases the 'RTT to client cacheresolver'
probably works well enough. That said though...
> Owen said it worked well for his customers (in a past life), and he
> has operational experience with this. Can anyone give a ser
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
>
> > As for being "incredibly stupid", well, as I have said in private, calling a
> > bunch of people rude names without even asking them why they are doing what
> > you think is so stupid is .. uh .. probably not very bright. :) Unless, of
> > course,
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:20:56PM -0700,
> william(at)elan.net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 23 lines which said:
>
> > How is that an "anti DoS" technique when you actually need to return
> > an answer via UDP in order to force n
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Steve Atkins wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> > So, to be clear folks want to make it much more difficult for
> > grandma-jones to return the typo'd: mygramdkids.com for
> > mygrandkids.com
> > right?
&g
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Steven Haigh wrote:
>
> On 18/08/2007, at 3:00 AM, Raymond L. Corbin wrote:
> >
> > I am shocked this many people responded to this post...
> >
> > -Ray
> >
>
> Just because something is possible it doesn't mean it should be done.
> It really is a Bad Idea (tm) to do stuff
40 matches
Mail list logo
