On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:33:30 EST, Jay Ashworth said:
> > From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> > Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;)
>
> Are we in fact coming out of it yet? I heard it was getting deeper,
> and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not an
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:22:46 EST, Jeff Kell said:
> It is a decreasing risk, given the typical user initiated compromise of
> today (click here to infect your computer), but a non-zero one.
>
> The whole IPv6 / no-NAT philosophy of "always connected and always
> directly addressable" eliminates t
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:17:39 GMT, lorddoskias said:
> appropriate treatment in case of emergency. With bigger company this
> would be harder, though I think the position "account manager" is
> essential this
Heard someplace, but we've been here ourselves:
"We were thrilled to hear they were as
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:22:32 CST, Jack Bates said:
> Really? Which machine was using the privacy extension address on the
> /64? I don't see how it's made it any easier to track. In some ways, on
> provider edges that don't support DHCPv6 IA_TA and relay on slaac, it's
> one extra nightmare.
T
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:01:15 +0100, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lor=E1nd_Jakab?= said:
> This setup will provide *less* security. Apart from the DoS scenario,
> should your public facing server get compromised, you have given easy
> access to your private infrastructure.
If a public server behind a NAT gets w
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:04:01 EST, William Herrin said:
> In a client (rather than server) scenario, the picture is different.
> Depending on the specific "NAT" technology in use, the firewall may be
> incapable of selecting a target for unsolicited communications inbound
> from the public Internet
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:13:43 EST, Scott Helms said:
> Few home users have a stateful firewall configured
What percent of home users are running a Windows older than XP SP2?
pgp0QIpK5GmKt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:21:24 PST, Paul Ferguson said:
> Try this at home, with/without NAT:
>
> 1. Buy a new PC with Windows installed
> 2. Install all security patches needed since the OS was installed
>
> Without NAT, you're unpatched PC will get infected in less than 1 minute.
What release o
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:05:42 EST, Scott Helms said:
> > That's simply not true. Every end user running NAT is running a stateful
> > firewall with a default inbound deny.
> Really? I just tested this with 8 different router models from 5
> different manufacturers and in all cases the default be
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:17:59 EST, Ricky Beam said:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:46:19 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Dude... In IPv6, there are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 /64s.
>
> Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>
> "Dude, there are 256 /8 in IPv4."
>
> "640k ought to be
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:21:12 PST, Leo Bicknell said:
> If you were allocating individual /48's, perhaps. But see, I'm a
> cable company, and I want a /48 per customer, and I have a couple
> of hundred thousand per pop, so I need a /30 per pop. Oh, and I
> have a few hundred pops, and I need to
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:56:05 PST, Charles N Wyble said:
> > The only issue I've faced is RHEL/CentOS doesn't have stateful connection
> > tracking for IPv6 - so ip6tables is practically worthless.
>
>
> H. Interesting. I wonder if this is specific to the RedHat kernel?
> Or a problem with v6
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:56:01 -1000, Antonio Querubin said:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >> Listen a.b.c.d:80 -> Listen 80
> >>->
> >>
> > That only works if you have only one address on the machine and.
>
> Actually it works fine on machines with multiple IP addre
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:04:31 PST, Owen DeLong said:
> > On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for end-site are
> > talking about a "business class" service. Even with my static IPs at
> > home, I have no need for more than a single /6
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:17:58 EST, Christopher Morrow said:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Jake Khuon wrote:
>
> > I guess this begs the question of whether or not we're seeing actual
> > layer1 going down or just the effects of mass BGP withdrawals. Are we
> > seeing lights out on fibre links
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:36:30 PST, George Bonser said:
> I think it would be pretty hard to actually cut off communications when the
> telephone system is still working. You can move a lot of email by dialup UUCP
> if you wanted to.
Sure, just pop onto amazon.com and order a modem... oh, wait.
(
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 00:49:34 +1300, Franck Martin said:
> Just make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot by telling the best route
> to the end of the tunnel is via the tunnel itself...
Did you mean routing *your* end of the tunnel to the tunnel itself, or
announcing to the entire world that
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:57:57 -0200, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo said:
> What I just don't get if, we as a society, have created institutions
> we trust with our *money* (AKA banks), why there can't be institutions
> we trust with our crypto keys. I know that banks sometimes fail, and
> yes, probably "
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:39:45 +0100, Leen Besselink said:
> On 01/25/2011 11:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >
> >> "640k ought to be enough for anyone."
Remember that when this apocryphal statement was allegedly made in 1981, IBM
mainframes and Crays and the like were already well in to the 64-256
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:06:05 -0200, "Carlos M. Martinez" said:
> I think it is too early in the deployment process to start dropping
> routes based on RPKI alone. We'll get there at some point, I guess.
Do we really *want* to get to that point?
pgpkwGoDsk8jO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:54:47 EST, Steve Danelli said:
> Some carrier, somewhere between us and the service provider is selectively
> dropping the IKE packets originating from our VPN gateway and destined for
> our Brazil gateway. Other traffic is able to pass, as are the IKE packets
> coming
> ba
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:27:45 -1000, Paul Graydon said:
> We're still using v4 because we can, because there has been no
> compelling business case to justify spending time on something that
> isn't necessary just right now, especially given the not insignificant
> changes between v4 and v6. Th
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:37:55 PST, Bill Stewart said:
> A typical home user will have a /56 of GUA, or maybe a /48 with some
> ISPs. Anybody who knows enough to figure out how to set a ULA can
> figure out a /64 from their GUA space that's not being auto-assigned
> by one of their various home rout
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said:
> We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within
> reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times
> the normal request rate... that would be a "rush".
Any trending on the rate of requests for
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:56:16 +0100, Sebastian Spies said:
> ASNs. First of all, we have no data or experience about 4-byte ASN
> adoption and are therefore unable to evaluate, if we should rush for the
> last available numbers.
2-byte ASN depletion - the other white meat
pgpGzY2hmFQkH.pgp
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:06:31 -0500, Jared Mauch said:
> 52731 ASN7922
> It includes IP address where you send a DNS packet to it and another IP
> address responds to the query, e.g.:
> The data only includes those where the source-ASN and dest-asn of these
> packets dont match.
Hang on
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:10:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> Thats the optimistic outcome. The pessimistic outcome is that they get
> rapidly depeered by everyone unwilling to pay $X/GB and then start losing
> customers because their customers can no longer reach anyone elses
> customers through them
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:24:08 -0800, Michael DeMan said:
> An NTPv5 solution that could be done with NTP services already
Doesn't matter - the same people that aren't upgrading to a correctly
configured NTPv4 aren't going to upgrade to an NTPv5. No need at all
for a protocol increment (and actuall
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:14:30 -0800, TGLASSEY said:
> My suggestion is that for those that need access we set up VLAN trunked
> private networking models to your ISP MPOE as it were in a digital context.
That's going to be one big VLAN.
/me makes popcorn.
pgp0cVq4AACgv.pgp
Description: PGP sign
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:50:56 -0800, TGLASSEY said:
> Or a whole bunch of small ones Vladis - and yes we are capable of
> handling the loads.
38,917 vlans later...
/me makes even *more* popcorn...
pgphM_JWCrh3v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:33:34 +0300, Ammar Salih said:
> I have a question for you, are you happy with the current network
> diagnostic tools, like ping, trace route .. etc, don't you think it's time
> to have an upgraded version of icmp protocol? from my side there is a lot
> that I can NOT do wi
On 03 Feb 2014 18:23:31 +, "John Levine" said:
> It seems thata hosts sending large amounts of NTP traffic over the
> public Internet can be safely filtered if you don't already know that
> it's one of the handful that's in the ntp.org pools or another well
> known NTP master.
You have that b
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:29:21 -0600, Joe Greco said:
> There's a bootstrap issue here. I'm guessing that you may be picturing
> a scenario where a network operator simply queries to obtain the list of
> ntp.org servers and special-cases their own. However, I believe that
> the system won't add NT
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:09:02 -0800, Paul Ferguson said:
> I'd like to echo Jared's sentiment here -- collectively speaking,
> service providers need to figure out a way to deal with this issue,
> before some congresscritters start to try to introduce legislation
> that will force you to to do it i
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:18:54 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> Regulation and audits works well enough for butchers, resturants
> etc. Remember once BCP 38 is implemented it is relatively easy to
> continue. The big step is getting it turned on in the first place
> which requires having the right equi
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:27:25 +, Muhammad Adnan said:
> I am a university researcher who is investigating the development of new,
> usable tools that will improve the work practices of cyber security
> professionals. As a first step to achieve this goal, I am undertaking a
> survey to gain an i
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:44:55 -0600, Brandon Galbraith said:
> Blocking chargen at the edge doesn't seem to be outside of the realm of
> possibilities.
What systems are (a) still have chargen enabled and (b) common enough to make
it a viable DDoS vector? Just wondering if I need to go around and
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:40:35 -0500, "Nick Olsen" said:
> Hey Guys, I need a 24 port ADSL (2, +, It's all the same in my book) DSLAM.
> And I need it by tomorrow.
Bonus points if you tell us what continent/timezone you need this in. Getting
said device to 60 Hudson and to Nowhere Island, Tahiti ar
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:28:01 -0400, jim deleskie said:
> Why want to swing such a big hammer. Even blocking those 2 IP's will
> isolate your users, and fill your support queue's.
>
> Set up a DNS server locally to reply to those IP's Your customers stay up
> and running and blissfully unaware.
>
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:23:55 -0500, William Herrin said:
> Hi folks,
>
> Can anyone tell me about a situation in which a route which was not
> valley free was not a result of a misconfiguration or a bad actor? For
> those who don't recall the terminology, a network path is valley free
> if it cross
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:48:26 +, "Siegel, David" said:
> I can't think of any circumstances where the business "B" would be content
> transit traffic between A and C without some form of compensation. That
> compensation may not involve payment for bits, however.
If ASN B is a cooperative vent
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:22:40 -, "Sholes, Joshua" said:
> If one came up in this field with a mentor who was old school, or if one
> is old school oneself, one tends use the original (as I understand it)
> definitions--a "cracker" breaks security or obtains data unlawfully, a
> "hacker" is some
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:46:06 -0400, William Herrin said:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time "hacker" emerged as a word
> distinct from "hack" it already carried implications of mischief and
> disregard for the rules in addition to the original implication of
> creatively solving a technica
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 16:21:50 -0700, Paul Ferguson said:
> On the other hand, there are beaucoup enterprise networks unwilling to
> consider to moving to v6 until there are management, control,
> administrative, and security issues addressed.
The problem is that for many of those enterprises, the
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:31:56 +0530, Kshitiz Verma said:
> At the same time, we couldn't even find genuine disputes apart from the
> ones we shared. It seems there should be more but we just could not find
> them on the web.
Much more common than actual depeering is the passive-agressive version,
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:13:43 -0400, William Herrin said:
> You'd expect folks to give up two layers of security at exactly the
> same time as they're absorbing a new network protocol with which
> they're yet unskilled? Does that make sense to you from a
> risk-management standpoint?
The problem i
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 02:47:31 -, "Naslund, Steve" said:
> Lots and lots of enterprises count on a hard perimeter and almost nothing
> behind it so once I am in behind your NAT, you are unlikely to notice it until
> something real bad happens. That is the state of most enterprise network
> secu
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:31:17 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> My bet is the number needing more that a single /64 will exceed the number
> needing just a /64. Most phones really need two /64 for tethering and
> currently there are lots of kludges to work around only one being available.
As a data poi
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:55:21 -0400, Lee Howard said:
> Some of us have quite a few IPv6 customers:
> http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
> And we see significant traffic from those users. :-)
I'm actually glad to see that we're no longer on the first page
of that list. ;)
pgpvBn_f_1Zc
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:51:11 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
> On 3/25/2014 10:25 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> >
> > Like I said in a previous response, if you are going to make rdns a
> > requirement, why not make SPF and DKIM mandatory as well?
>
> many ISPs ALREADY require rDNS. So making that standard of
On 25 Mar 2014 22:55:19 -0400, "John R. Levine" said:
> > I would suggest the formation of an "IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,"
> > with a system for enrolling certain IP address source ranges as "Active
> > mail servers", active IP addresses and SMTP domain names under the
> > authority of a me
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:07:22 -0400, Lamar Owen said:
> it; get enough endusers with this problem and you'll get a class-action
> suit against OS vendors that allow the problem to remain a problem; you
> can get rid of the bots.
You *do* realize that the OS vendor can't really do much about users
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:19:14 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
> Again comparing something like factual numbers of IPv6 addresses the
> the very fuzzy math of guessing how many atoms there are is very silly
> indeed.
A bit of thought will show that you can probably compute this based on our
est
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:22:32 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> This assumes a different economic model of SPAM that I have been lead to
> believe exists.
> My understanding is that the people sending the SPAM get paid immediately and
> that the people paying them to send it are the ones hoping that the
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:05:39 -0700, Matthew Petach said:
> system, which does 100,000,000 transactions/day. Facebook's
> presentation talks about doing billions *per second*, which if I
Fortunately for Facebook, they don't have to worry about double-spending
problems, and you don't have to worry
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:24:32 -0400, "Chuck Church" said:
> Given that probably 80+% (a guess, but I'd be really surprised at a lower
> figure) of all internet traffic crosses at least one Cisco device somewhere,
> I think it would be a huge disservice to discontinue sending these emails.
Actually,
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:16:23 -0700, Andree Toonk said:
> Quick update from BGPmon:
> We've detected 415,652 prefixes being hijacked by Indosat today.
Those who do not understand AS7007 are doomed to repeat it?
pgpU55zVC12U9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:00:41 +0900, Randy Bush said:
> > Bad enough that "professional" folks can goof to this extent
>
> luckily, you, valdis, and i never make mistakes :)
You must have me confused with somebody else. I wouldn't have a world-wide
reputation for getting myself out of holes I've
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 22:50:26 -0700, Doug Barton said:
> On 04/08/2014 10:28 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:18:00AM -0500, jamie rishaw wrote:
> >> Here's the only way to keep a system safe from Internet hackers:
> >>
> >> http://goo.gl/ZvGrXw [google images]
> >
> > /me is d
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:15:59 -0400, William Herrin said:
> Meh. This just means list software will have to rewrite the From
> header to "From: John Levine " and rely on the
> Reply-To header for anybody who wants to send a message back to the
> originator.
>
> Maybe this is a good thing - we can s
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:07:36 +0100, Fabien Bourdaire said:
> # Log rules
> iptables -t filter -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -m u32 --u32 \
> "52=0x1803:0x1803" -j LOG --log-prefix "BLOCKED: HEARTBEAT"
That 52= isn't going to work if it's an IPv4 packet with an unexpected
number IP or TCP
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:56:16 -0700, Michael Thomas said:
> but I can't see what the point is in defending the idiocy as being some
> sort of sacred right.
I'm sure Randy Bush would defend his competitor's right to run their networks
that way. :)
pgpPc4rzVLYWF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 07:56:01 +1000, Matt Palmer said:
> The interesting thing to me is that the article claims the NSA have been
> using this for "over two years", but 1.0.1 (the first vulnerable version)
> was only released on 14 Mar 2012. That means that either:
> * The NSA found it *amazingl
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:12:09 -0400, Miles Fidelman said:
> It occurs to me that Yahoo's deployment of DMARC p=reject, and the
> choice of several big mail operators to honor that, has created a
> situation not unlike a really routing table or nameserver, snafu ---
It's more like a peering war. T
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:56:46 -, Laszlo Hanyecz said:
> If you really want to get your mailing list messages through,
The problem isn't the rest of us trying to mail to Yahoo.
The problem is when Yahoo users post to lists that use DMARC, and the
result is the yahoo user's mail getting bounce
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:21:34 -0600, Steven Briggs said:
> Yeah...I know. Unfortunately, the domain was "mishandled" by our
> registrar, who imposed their own TTLs on our zone, THEN turned it back over
> to us with a 48HR TTL. Which is very bad.
That's almost calling for a name-and-shame.
pgpXc
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:19:18 -0700, Private Sender said:
> I'm sorry but is there a fundamental misunderstanding of dmarc going on
> in this thread?
Yes, apparently mostly on the part of Yahoo apologists...
> There is no need to flame a company because they implemented a policy to
> ensure QoS t
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:50:01 -0400, William Herrin said:
> To vendors who would sell me product, I would respectfully suggest
> that attempts to forcefully educate me as to what I *should want*
> offers neither a short nor particularly successful path to closing a
> sale.
Which is why you reject
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:10:31 -0400, Lee Howard said:
> "Methods used to meet the intent of this
> requirement may vary depending on the specific
> networking technology being used. For example,
> the controls used to meet this requirement may be
> different for IPv4 networks than for IPv6 networks
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:54:16 -0400, Bryan Socha said:
> Icann is the mast 8 class as real?Distribute them
"Not Even Wrong" -- W. Pauli
pgpvkYUXpRipf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, "Bob Evans" said:
> Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
Spoken like a true oligarch. :)
pgpi7z4ivHaAa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:08:55 -0700, TGLASSEY said:
> 1) The pipe issue is that of the last mile providers and not
> Netflix. The issue is the failure of the IETF to put controls in place
> which address this.
It's totally unclear to me that the IETF is the one who failed to put
controls in
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:59:43 -0400, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> > On Apr 28, 2014, at 19:41, Chris Boyd wrote:
> > I'm in the middle of a physical move. I promise I'll take the 3 deagg'd
> > /24s out as soon as I can.
> Do not laugh. If everyone who had 3 de-agg'ed prefixes fixed it, the table
>
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:40:43 -, Jamie Bowden said:
> You're not funny. And if you're not joking, you're wrong. We just went over
> this on this very list two weeks ago.
And in that discussion, we ascertained that what the PCI standard actually
says, and what you need to do in order to get u
On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:58:58 +0800, Song Li said:
> I have one bgp convergence problem which confused me. The problem is as
> follows:
You may want to Google for 'BGP Wedgie'.
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog31/presentations/griffin.pdf
http://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc-4264.txt
Once you unde
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:22:37 +0200, Henning Brauer said:
> * Nick Hilliard [2014-04-26 22:56]:
> > the situation was created by the openbsd team, not the ieee, the ietf or
> > iana.
>
> that's nothing short of a lie.
Umm.. remind me who chose the conflicting value and shipped product that used
it
On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, "Constantine A. Murenin" said:
> Also, would you please be so kind as to finally explain to us why
> Google can squat on the https port with SPDY,
Because it doesn't squat on the port. It politely asks "Do you speak SPDY,
or just https?" and then listens to wh
On Fri, 09 May 2014 17:51:56 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> Sounds like a Dish commercial
(James Earl Jones voice):
Now imagine it again, but with Jim Cummings instead...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLXTDirrQ5w
(Sorry, I couldn't resist... :)
pgphEjXN1tGcc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 12 May 2014 15:02:28 +0200, Nick Hilliard said:
> a small amount of money. Even better, if you chase the the content sources
> for cash, you can do this without increasing customer prices which means
> you can stay more competitive in the sales market.
Thank you, I needed my morning chuc
On Wed, 14 May 2014 17:09:02 +0100, Dave Bell said:
> People use VRF's to provide Layer3 VPNs to customers. Customers
> typically use overlapping address space in their networks.
That's the customer's problem inside their networks. If you have
overlapping address space in *your own greenfield* n
On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:21:12 +1200, "Tony Wicks" said:
> Deploy v6... yes its very easy to replace every CPE device that every home
> user has... really ? come on, back in the real world that is just not going
> to happen until by default every CPE device has the capability as default.
> Dual stac
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:25:20 -0700, Philip Lavine said:
> need some guidance on best practices
What the vendor says is best practices, or what people in the trenches say?
> Is it more efficient to use RR or Confederation?
If option A is 2% more "efficient" than option B, but takes 10% longer to
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:14:04 -0400, "rw...@ropeguru.com" said:
> No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses.
Wow. Harsh. I burn more than that just in my living room.
pgpz1lrzoN6TN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:26:47 -0500, Chris Adams said:
> Doing anything that ties networks to physical servers is a poor design
> for a VPS environment. That would mean that any VM migration requires
> customers to renumber (so no live migration allowed at all).
Why? Two hypervisors tossing a su
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 07:18:36 -0500, "STARNES, CURTIS" said:
> At 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 per /64, that is a lot of address.
> Right now I cannot get IPv6 at home so I will take getting "screwed" with a
> /56 or /60 and be estatic about it.
My WNDR3800 running cerowrt is quite able to use up t
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:51:06 -0400, Barry Shein said:
> Really. You're really completely discounting ICANN in having any
> leadership or participative role in the IPv4/IPv6 transition?
Haven't seen any yet. Probably because you can't make money with IP addresses
like you can with TLD's
(Now
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:53:20 -0700, "Edward Arthurs" said:
> If mid to small companies have equipment made in the last 7 years, they will
> not need to replace equipment.
> Most net admins at the mid to small companies have no idea about IPV6.
In other words, upgrading or replacing liveware is mo
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:07:48 +0100, Daniel Ankers said:
> How does it use those 6 /64s? That seems to be getting towards the
> interesting times where the way devices work with v6 is very different to
> how they would have worked with v6
If I remember right, it's:
Private net on the 2.4ghz radi
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:59:34 -0400, Barry Shein said:
> But I thought ICANN was supposed to be the new and future nexus for
> all things internet governance?
Oh, come on Barry. This isn't your first rodeo, and I know you're *way*
too smart to believe that press releases align with reality...
pg
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:59:47 +1000, Skeeve Stevens said:
> I am after a LSN/CGN/NAT444 solution to put about 1000 Residential profile
> NBN speeds (fastest 100/40) services behind.
> This solution is for v4 only, and needs to consider the profile of the
> typical residential users. Any pitfalls
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:52:26 -0400, William Herrin said:
> People will notice you streaking across a football field. They won't
> pay the slightest attention to what you have to say but they sure will
> notice you. Shall we organize a naked routing run?
Ew. That's a mental image I didn't need. P
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:22:52 -0700, Matthew Petach said:
> ISP until you're blue in the face, for all the good
> it does you; the incontrovertible point I'm making
> is that you don't exist as a recognizably separate
> entity from your upstream provider from the network
> perspective.
If there's
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:02:57 -0400, Joly MacFie said:
> 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and..
And what if "terminating" versus "transit" depends on where you observe from?
(For example, if we provide transit to a downstream, but only announce a
route to one of our ups
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:32 -0400, Barry Shein said:
> What hair are you trying to split? That you were using a shared
> address? Are people behind a NAT wall not on the internet?
I've got a 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow to get rid of, so I'll opine
that a user on The World was more "on the
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of your
> customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are single
> uplink count here, yes.
>
> You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your custome
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:25:34 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> everything cause he's at right angles to it; the majority of ASs, I would
> venture to speculate, veer sharply in one direction or the other -- even
> if that's because a transit operator acquired an eyeball operator, or
> vice versa, and th
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:08:58 -0600, Brett Glass said:
> Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined,
> range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and
> about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to
> accept more input. (Yes, machines c
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:45:29 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitiv
e, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'"
> > -- Seth Breidbart.
> Note th
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant.
The last time I checked, the FCC data was a steaming pile of dingo's
kidneys due to the way they overstated access. It was done on a per-county
basis, and if the service was of
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:36:02 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> When did the NANOG list become freeconsulting.org?
I read that post, and I had a severe attack of "If you have to ask this
question, you're not going to understand any answer short enough to fit
in a NANOG post"
pgpGmur2Q5sG5.pgp
Descri
301 - 400 of 1688 matches
Mail list logo
