On 12 nov 2010, at 02:41, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> I've run into a number of low end CPE situations lately where I
> haven't found anything that does what I want, but I have to believe
> it is out there. I'm hoping NANOG can help.
> What is the state of the art, and who has it?
Have a loo
> All of this on a $70 box, with a very fast CPU, and 5 GigE ports.
Currently playing with a little ADSL box made by Gennet (Athens, Greece). They
have a beta which includes v6 support. Still some work to do but it looks very
promising and the basics work (PPP dual stack, dhcpv6 PD, DNS). Firew
> While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now
> all /64.
>
> I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful.
RFC3627, with a lot of discussion in the IETF on this. See also
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p/
> Howev
lp in
>> identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on
>> RIPE Labs:
>>
>> http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-needed
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Mirjam Kuehne & Marco Hogewoning
>> RIPE NCC
>>
>>
>>
>
On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Peter Dambier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have not seen this in the discussion yet.
>
> http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011
>
> CPE support does not seem to be very broad yet.
> As far as I can see there is almost PPPoE only for IPv6 in
> I am having trouble with Quagga in setting up IPv6 BGP. So far it was
> failing with external providers. Just now I gave it a try to setup BGP
> session (IPv6 only) within our ASN between two routers.
>
> From our other end router I see there is no acconcement, while I see blocks
> being announc
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> IEEE 802 was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers ever built.
>
> Internet was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers actively on
> the network.
>
> Obviously, over time, the latter would be a declining percentage
On 18 jun 2010, at 18:04, Zed Usser wrote:
> With marketing campaigns like these, no consumer will want to use IPv6, if it
> becomes associated with privacy problems.
>
> http://torrentfreak.com/huge-security-flaw-makes-vpns-useless-for-bittorrent-100617/
>
> It is, of course, totally irreleva
On 21 jul 2010, at 19:22, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2010-07-21 12:57, Alex Band wrote:
>> We've been working on an exercise for the IPv6 training course we deliver
>> for LIRs. It's aimed at people who are unfamiliar with IPv6, so the goal is
>> to get them to the point where once they get th
On 21 jul 2010, at 21:08, Zaid Ali wrote:
> I currently have a v4 BGP session with AS 701 and recently requested a v6
> BGP session to which I was told a tunnel session will be provided (Same
> circuit would be better but whatever!). Towards the final stage in
> discussions I was told that it wil
On 21 jul 2010, at 21:50, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2010-07-21 14:47, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> For a novice ? I wouldn't recommend it. From what I get back 'in the field'
>> it's already hard enough to get people familliar to the whole concept of
>>
On 23 jul 2010, at 01:33, Matthew Walster wrote:
> On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Band wrote:
>> There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all
>> the up and downsides. Does anyone disagree?
>
> I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
> be
> "Home wifi router" vendors will do whatever it takes to make this work, so of
> course in your scenario they simply implement NAT66 (whether or not IETF
> folks think it is a good idea) however they see fit and nobody calls.
This will greatly help in deploying IPv6...here is another NAT becau
> However, even then, there is no guarantee that the common denominator CPE for
> this service wont have NAT66 features, maybe even turned on by default.
I've tested a lot of CPE's and haven't come across one that supports NAT66,
they all do support DHCPv6 prefix delegation and actually most of
Brocade basically sucks when it comes to loadbalancing IPv6, the old serveriron
platform is EOL and a complete mess which offers some IPv6 support, but not
much. The new ADX platform seems to be in a pre-alfa stage at the moment. So
normally I would say stand clear, however we do run a (larger)
On 15 aug 2010, at 20:05, Randy Bush wrote:
>> What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from
>> source address validation? Is it recommended? Discouraged?
>>
>> (One argument in favor of exceptions is that it makes PMTUD work if
>> transfer networks use private address s
On 18 aug 2010, at 01:12, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> prefer static addressing. But in the world of facebook and co. I
> wonder if it would be a better to let the user have the choice. A
What does facebook have to do with it ? Ever heard of cookies ?
MarcoH
On 18 aug 2010, at 09:35, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>>
>> On 18 aug 2010, at 01:12, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>
>>> prefer static addressing. But in the world of facebook and co. I
>>> wo
On May 8, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Please set up a pingable IP address for each new netblock and post
it to
NANOG with a request to have us ping it. It's not automated, but
it's a
good start.
Frank
You might also want to have a look at the RIPE NCC's beacon stuff:
http://www
On 9 jul 2009, at 12:24, Mikael Lind wrote:
Hi,
I've seen a big drop in IPv6 traffic volume on our Freenet6 IPv6
service last night and it seems to be the same on AMS-IX.
Has anyone else seen the same? Any idea why?
Multiple options, but it must have something todo with a free usenet
servi
Hi Patrick ,
On 9 jul 2009, at 16:10, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:58 AM, michiel.muhlenbau...@atratoip.net wrote:
Hi Jeroen & others,
Yep, looks like we are doing a great portion of AMSIX's IPv6
traffic and
our (free) IPv6 service was affected because of an internal erro
On Oct 7, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-10/ts_burningquestion
I'm not sure the effects are so big compared to the actual speed that
they are noticable for the average user. We also don't have any proper
data available but w
On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
It is sad to see that networks which used to care about
connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change
their mind when they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent,
an open peer who decided to turn down peers wh
On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:14 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Dan White wrote:
Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries,
rather
than IPv4 /32.
And then people will scream because someone setup a layout that
hands out /128 addresses within a /64 pool.
There is that chance yes
On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
[..]
As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance
be a
good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64 addresses
Can you please *NOT
Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
internet as a whole.
You are publishing records for www.cogentco.com, which means
that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send
my pref
On Oct 13, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2009-10-13, at 14:46, Matthew Petach wrote:
I allocate a /64, but currently I configure only a /127 subnet on the
actual interface.
For BRAS/PPPoE deployments you're dealing with a point-to-point
link, so in principle you can number the en
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/russian-police-and-internet-registry-accused-of-aiding-cybercrime-2165
With more on that:
http://www.ripe.net/news/rbn.html
"Press coverage this week portrayed the RIPE NCC as being involved
with
On 24 okt 2009, at 14:36, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Marco Hogewoning
wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
\>>
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/russian-police-and-internet-registry-accused-of-aiding-cybercrime-2165
> 1.Why don't providers use /31 addresses for P2P links? This
> works fine per rfc 3021 but nobody seems to believe it or use it. Are
> there any major manufacturers out there that do not support it?
99.999% of my customers are on /32 anyway. I could probably get a handfull of
address
On 1 apr 2010, at 02:04, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 31/03/2010 23:55, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>> What good off the shelf solutions are out there? Should one buy the high
>> end d-link/linksys/netgear products? I've had bad experiences with those
>> (netgear in particular).
>
> Some people have sai
Hi There,
We just released a new version of the IPv6 CPE survey. After lots of feedback
on the previous editions, we are now doing a "proper" survey. Based on the
responses we receive in this survey we will be able to compile a new edition of
our matrix and provide some more statistical backgro
-survey-results-may-2011
The survey is still open. If you are using an IPv6 capable CPE and have not yet
filled in the survey, we would like to encourage you to do so. The survey can
be found here:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/ipv6-cpe-survey-please-participate
Kind Regards,
Marco Hogewoning
33 matches
Mail list logo
