Does anyone want to do a FAQ covering the issues as to why home users
should get a /64 vs /56 vs /48 etc?
Pop me an email.
--
Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
To stay awake all night adds a day to your life - Stilgar | eMT.
This isn't the right list, so I don't want to clutter. However, I do want to
answer you and I don't want to start something big on the main list.
--- trej...@gmail.com wrote:
From: TJ trej...@gmail.com
I believe that is because ARIN is encouraging /56s for home-users.
unsubscribe
-christian
-Original Message-
From: Scott Weeks [mailto:sur...@mauigateway.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 12:47 PM
To: nanog-futures@nanog.org
Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] IPv6 and Home user allocations
This isn't the right list, so I don't want to clutter. However, I
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Scott Weeks wrote:
This isn't the right list, so I don't want to clutter.
Definately not the right list. Anyway I've had 1.5 people put their name
down so far so if others are interested please email me.
I'd like to get a first draft out pretty quickly.
--
Simon Lyall |
it has been a bit of a lesson to watch this OT thread self-moderate on
this non-moderated list.
and this post is on topic, though has an incorrect $subject :)
randy
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
We use the ADC D1M-1A0019, happily:
http://www.launch3telecom.com/adc/dsxpanels/D1M-1A0019.html
Frank
-Original Message-
From: sjk [mailto:s...@sleepycatz.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 2:56 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: DSX cross-connect solution
I am trying to find hardware for a
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:53, Ken Gilmour ken.gilm...@gmail.com wrote:
So is this going to become like the great firewall of China
eventually? You can see in the letters that they are going to see how
it goes and then maybe start blocking more stuff if they are
successful. I can see a big
You have RFC3041 and similar techniques, stateless autoconfig, and a
variety of other general things that make it really awful for the default
ethernet network size to be something besides a /64.
...
I would definitely prefer to see a /56, or maybe a /48, handed out
today.
When I first
Besides the obvious KDD which shows up in traceroute, does anyone else
provide bandwidth to Telehouse? They are spamming contact addresses
from the PAIX peering list, and claiming they have every right to do
so. We'd like to convince them otherwise. Replies would be best off-
list.
On Mon, 04 May 2009 16:05:30 -0400, Wallace Keith
kwall...@pcconnection.com wrote:
I would stick with wire wrap, 66 blocks make an inferior connection.
True, but a 66 block will work. Usually. And is easily re-punched.
If someone cannot deal with wire wrapping, they are not living in a
---
successful. I can see a big nightmare heading this way if ISPs start
caving in to requests like this.
---
It's happening all over the place. Not picking on any country or list, just to
post a few examples...
Bill Stewart wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead, so not only was
autoconfiguration much uglier, but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you
were going to subnet.
It's supposed to be a /48 per customer, on the assumption that 16 bits
of subnet information is
Alternatively, one could use a digital cross-connect.
Terry
-Original Message-
From: Ricky Beam [mailto:jfb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 5:23 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: DSX cross-connect solution
On Mon, 04 May 2009 16:05:30 -0400, Wallace Keith
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Does anybody know why anybody thought it was a
This has been a fascinating theoritcal discussion.. how do existing providers
hand out space?
Hurricane electric (via its tunnel service) hands out a /64 by default and a
/48 is a click away.
How do other providers handle it? I'm in the us and only have native v4
connectivity :(
Do the
Ricky Beam wrote:
64bit MAC -- which pretty much exists nowhere. It's a repeat of the
mistakes from IPv4's early days: CLASSFUL ROUTING.
Given there is no CLASS, but just a separation of network and host, I'd
hate to compare it to classful routing. They probably would have been
happy with
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Does anybody know why anybody thought
Joe Greco wrote:
But what we're talking about is service providers delegating to customers.
Customers should *also* be allowed to subnet however they want.
Something they can't do right now, because they aren't given the space.
If service providers are allowed to delegate teeny prefixes
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:01:32 -0400, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
Given there is no CLASS, but just a separation of network and host, I'd
hate to compare it to classful routing. They probably would have been
happy with a /96 network except for stateless autoconfig, which is quite
Louis,
may be a provider independent network is what you are looking for. This
is an end-user block of IP addresses moving with you from one ISP to
another, also can be multihomed to several ISPs together.
Our company helps to obtain such networks and autonomous system numbers,
from /24 (256
Digital cross connect is the way to go if you have the budget to do
that. Turin now force 10 make a good dacs and or the cisco 15454 with a
ds3-12xm card can do it as well.
-carlos
-Original Message-
From: Chatfield, Terry [mailto:terry.chatfi...@neustar.biz]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009
In a message written on Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:38:13PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
So far, Cisco's gear is the only IPv6 routers I've messed with. And they
will not let you set an interface to anything smaller than a /64.
Loopbacks have slightly different rules, but in my case (IPv6
On Mon, 04 May 2009 22:29:29 -0400, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
EUI-64 is required for autoconfig...
On paper :-) There's no technological reason why the 48bit MAC wouldn't
be enough on it's own. Tacking on an extra (fixed) 16bit value doesn't
make it any more unique. Doing so
On May 4, 2009, at 23:36, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
FireWire is the only significant user of EUI-64 addresses
Yesterday, it was.
You might want to read up about IEEE 802.15.4 and 6LoWPAN.
We are not joking when we talk about the next billion nodes on the
Internet.
For those who are worried
* Joel Jaeggli:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
I hear this a lot, but how many linksys default channel 6 end users
really have more than one subnet, or even know what a subnet is?
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router, then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router, then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That happens more often then
you would think.
Isn't the traffic bridged, so that you don't have to route WINS and
other stuff? Then it's
On 4/05/2009, at 7:19 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router,
then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That happens more often
then
you would think.
Isn't the traffic bridged, so
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
I think that they have to be forwarded. What do you do if people chain
three routers? How does your actual CPE know to dish out a /60 and not a
/64 or something? What if someone chains four? What if someone puts
three devices behind the second?
This is
On 4/05/2009, at 8:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
I think that they have to be forwarded. What do you do if people
chain three routers? How does your actual CPE know to dish out a /
60 and not a /64 or something? What if someone chains four? What if
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
Because it allows the home user to arrange their network however they
want, up to 16 subnets, without having to have any knowledge of how
things actually work.
I don't see how your idea of doing on-demand-/64 is any easier than
handing them 256 /64:s
On May 4, 2009, at 10:08, Nathan Ward wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
If the ISP sees (and has to hand out) the PD, some bean counter will
put a price tag on it (differential pricing).
If
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
Then tell RIR's to quit insisting that /56's have SWIP's. They can't
very well be dynamic in nature via PD if they are being SWIP'd.
I never heard of this requirement before, but I am not in the ARIN region.
There is no technical reason why you can't
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
It's short sighted and silly to design your service around handing out
/64s to people and then you have to redesign it when demand for multiple
subnets come around. Design it around /56 to begin with, and you will
have solved the problem for the future, not just for
Hi,
I host some gambling sites (off-shore) and I would like to get some
info on how i can put minnesota IP blocks on my Filter-List to comply
with their 'wacked politics'
-beavis
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Ken Gilmour ken.gilm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I am just wondering if
Not withstanding the legality of such an order, how would one
operationally enforce that order? Does this order force carriers into
transparent proxy so that L7 filtering can be done? Is the carrier also
required to go through geolocator matching any given IP address with
'Minnesota' so
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Beavis pfu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I host some gambling sites (off-shore) and I would like to get some
info on how i can put minnesota IP blocks on my Filter-List to comply
with their 'wacked politics'
-beavis
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Ken Gilmour
Not withstanding the legality of such an order, how would one
operationally enforce that order?
The order has a list of IP addresses, so I expect the ISPs will just
block those IPs in routers somewhere.
Since offshore online gambling is equally illegal everywhere in the
U.S., the ISPs have
So is this going to become like the great firewall of China
eventually? You can see in the letters that they are going to see how
it goes and then maybe start blocking more stuff if they are
successful. I can see a big nightmare heading this way if ISPs start
caving in to requests like this.
Seems like we were just here, but yet again, I'm having trouble verifying
you're accepting a customer route (a different one than last week), and
since sending me a copy of our prefix filter was apparently too much to
ask, and you make it so easy to talk on the phone with anyone who
knows what
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:57, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
Seems like we were just here, but yet again, I'm having trouble verifying
you're accepting a customer route (a different one than last week), and
since sending me a copy of our prefix filter was apparently too much to ask,
and you
On May 4, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Matthew Black wrote:
Instead of huffing and puffing your libertarian perspective (you
called the AG's letter garbage), you might make a quick Google
search of 18USC1084(d), which provides a wealth of information on
the legality of such enforcement actions.
Jeremy McDermond wrote:
manner that Minnesota seeks. In this case the First Amendment may be
applicable because this seems to be a prior restraint on speech.
Additionally, it is content based because it seeks to restrict speech
due to its transmission or reception of gambling information.
Oddly, none of the courses in the event discuss IPv6.
http://www.intelembeddedevent.com/
Intel® Embedded eVent We’re standing at the forefront of the Embedded
Internet Era. The opportunities are yours.
The networked world is growing at a tremendous pace. In just six
years, it’s expected
Joe Maimon wrote:
Joe Greco wrote:
One of the goals of providing larger address spaces was to reduce (and
hopefully eliminate) the need to burn forwarding table entries where
doing so isn't strictly necessary. When we forget this, it leads us
to the same sorts of disasters that we
So is this going to become like the great firewall of China
eventually?
Who knows. It's hardly the first government attempt to block illegal
content, viz. the secret Pennsylvania list of child porn sites.
R's,
John
Carsten Bormann wrote:
On May 4, 2009, at 10:08, Nathan Ward wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
If the ISP sees (and has to hand out) the PD, some bean counter will put
a price tag on it
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
What remains to be seen is what will happen when someone says hey, my
/32 is full, I need another one. Will it be:
a) Sure, here's another /32, have fun!
b) You didn't subnet very efficiently by current standards even though
it was encouraged in the
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Chris Grundemann wrote:
I assume you checked route-server.twtelecom.net for the route?
Yeah...that's why I'm pretty sure they're not accepting it. Their only
path is a longer as-path than what they'd get from us. Checking
route-server.twtelecom.net is pretty much the
I am trying to find hardware for a rebuild of our DS1 cross-connect
frame and can't seem to find much out there. We've got ~300 DS1s that
need to be x-connected between our M13s and I'm seeking an easy to
manage solution. I've looked at the Telect panels but I'm concerned that
my staff can't deal
You would get better density from a 110 patch than a 66, and telco frames
for 19 and 23 are readily available.
Robert D. Scott rob...@ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer 352-273-0113 Phone
CNS - Network Services 352-392-2061 CNS Phone Tree
University of Florida
I would stick with wire wrap, 66 blocks make an inferior connection. If
someone cannot deal with wire wrapping, they are not living in a telecom
world. Find a contractor who can do this properly. Both Telect and ADC
have good DSX panels in varying densities.
-Keith
-Original Message-
51 matches
Mail list logo
