On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> I recall last month in our web servers was something like 8% with IPv6
> (average), but in my opinion most of the IPv6 traffic is peer-to-peer so not
8% seems high to me as well, I don't think I've ever seen my v6 traffic
over 1% honestly :( W
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
>
> An obvious corollary to this is that ISPs should be planning their v6
> offerings now, too. This means routers, databases, operation support
> systems, CPE for cable and DSL ISPs, etc. Those that don't are likely
> to find themselves bypassed
- Original Message -
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google
> The last figure that I remember, very impressive, was in April 2004, when
> the estimated number of hosts us
I recall last month in our web servers was something like 8% with IPv6
(average), but in my opinion most of the IPv6 traffic is peer-to-peer so not
easy to measure at web servers (or "servers" in general).
Regards,
Jordi
> De: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ w
rites:
>
>I don't think is failing ... On the other way around: looking at the
>adoption perspectives and compared with other technologies, transition
>stages, and so on, is going much faster than expected ...
>
About 4 years ago, I predicted
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> The last figure that I remember, very impressive, was in April 2004, when
> the estimated number of hosts using 6to4 on Windows hosts was calculated as
> 100.000.000 (extrapolated from measurements). This is not including hosts
that seems rea
On 12/09/05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And yes, having more addresses means also that every device can turn on
> end-to-end security, which is already an improvement versus today Internet
> with IPv4+NAT.
>
Jordi, as I told you at APNIC 20, end to end security and host
I don't think is failing ... On the other way around: looking at the
adoption perspectives and compared with other technologies, transition
stages, and so on, is going much faster than expected ...
Regards,
Jordi
> De: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think is just a question of using the correct arguments which every target
group ;-) Those that don't start supporting IPv6 are already running out of
some customers. It's up to them !
Regards,
Jordi
> De: George William Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
cause each end node knows about the upstream network 'problems' so well?
giving them full routes too are we? ( I don't want to fight this
arguement here, I'm just making a rhetorical question, one I hope there
will be a presentation this nanog
The last figure that I remember, very impressive, was in April 2004, when
the estimated number of hosts using 6to4 on Windows hosts was calculated as
100.000.000 (extrapolated from measurements). This is not including hosts
with have native support or use other transition mechanism such as
configu
While I agree that all kind of consumer devices will be most probably the
first application of IPv6 at every home, office, etc., the BIG usage will
come from sensors of all kinds. Probably will count by thousands at every
place.
I'm sure that we will never fill in the 64 bits address space of mos
On 12/09/05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that you're assuming that your access network will be
> multi-gigabit in order to support millions of hosts trying to scan each of
> your subnets simultaneously in order to finish in time before celebrating a
> couple
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:26:20 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Given that ther's not 2**80 atoms on the planet, yes, that *would* be an =
> ouch.
D'oh!. There are 2**80 atoms. Somebody misremembered Avogadro's number. ;)
pgpcnncRYjupA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Suresh,
It seems to me that you're assuming that your access network will be
multi-gigabit in order to support millions of hosts trying to scan each of
your subnets simultaneously in order to finish in time before celebrating a
couple of centuries before now ?
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Suresh Ram
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:29:03 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
> With all due respect (!) to the v6 promotion councils out there, I
> doubt, for the same reasons you do, that there'll ever be enough v6
> capable hosts out there, toasters or not, to fill even a single /48,
> for a long time .. bu
On 12/09/05, Dave Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sure, with some incredible luck, you could find all those devices while
> you're scanning - just seems like some are crying that the sky is falling
> already.
>
Like I said -
> I was just assuming that people who promote v6 as the best t
Once you find a host on a /48 jump to the next one I guess. Or make
some guess on what IP addressing scheme is being followed and which
subnets of that /48 are being used [assuming that an end site like a
cellphone carrier decides to give v6 IPs to all its phone users] ...
scan from within the
On 12/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A /48 is 80 bits of address. 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 addresses.
> Even at a million packets/second (which even Joe Sixpack will quite likely
> notice until such time as the Linksys router you get at Walmart does 1M pps),
> that
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:32:36 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
>
> On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Drop me a line when your botnet finishes scanning 3FFE:::/16 and moves
> > on to 2001:::
>
> It is a v6 botnet - so a correspondingly larger number of infected
> h
On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drop me a line when your botnet finishes scanning 3FFE:::/16 and moves
> on to 2001:::
It is a v6 botnet - so a correspondingly larger number of infected
hosts, and larger botnet size
If it is your argument that scanning just won't sc
On 12/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> so, not security per se, more authentication...
>
Authentication, access control, basic remote and local vulnerabltiies,
viruses .. the works
> those things are networkable now... as are these:
> light switch
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 07:15:59AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 12/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Security is something that really must be taken into account now,
> > > before it starts to become a problem
> >
> > er,, not to be a naif, but what
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It doesn't scare us... ever try nmaping a /48?
one host at a time? from a single point? nope - once v6 becomes common
enough someone will just write a nice little distributed botnet to
p
On 12/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Security is something that really must be taken into account now,
> > before it starts to become a problem
>
> er,, not to be a naif, but what do you mean by "security"
> in this context?
Well, something like coding th
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 06:25:30AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't scare us... ever try nmaping a /48?
> >
>
> one host at a time? from a single point? nope - once v6 becomes common
> enough someone will just writ
On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It doesn't scare us... ever try nmaping a /48?
>
one host at a time? from a single point? nope - once v6 becomes common
enough someone will just write a nice little distributed botnet to
propagate around it.
who wants nmap when all you n
On 11/09/05, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In fact, I would much rather allow access to pretty much anything
> else rather than a powerful general-purpose computer.
>
My microwave has a bigger and faster processor than the one that the
Apollo lunar modules had.
In the tim
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:01:21 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> In other words: 0wning random appliances isn't all that interesting.
Amazingly enough, the *single* biggest problem in trying to get Joe
Sixpack to secure their systems is "But I don't have anything they'd be
interested in..."
> In
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:51:47AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >This says that although there are 170k prefixes on the Internet,
> >there are
> >only 20k entities who actually need to announce IP space. There is
> >only
> >
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 06:32:58AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and own
address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each home in the
world being multihomed, it just do
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 9/11/05, Alan Spicer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
love IPv6 more than you guys would ever give to a sole. Shoot I could run a
big ISP on a single 48. God bless America.
Instead, you have small end sites getting /48s from tunnel provide
> >> 1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
>
> > 4 Million
>
> So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1?
Could be 4.1 or even 4.2. I'm assuming those
working on 4byte ASs know, if it's more we'll have
to migrate again which would be silly so soon
So about 4M it must be.
> We know t
On 11-sep-2005, at 20:34, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
4 Million
So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1?
2. Tell us how a routing table of that size (assuming 1 route per AS)
will scale based on reasonable extrapolations of today's technol
On 11-sep-2005, at 20:26, Alan Spicer wrote:
some countries other than the US are severely starved for IP
addresses.
Please point me to the RIR policies that say that organizations in
the US that don't have address space get it, while the same request
from a non-US organization is denied
On 11-sep-2005, at 19:06, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
Unknown. Somewhat less than the number of hosts on the Internet,
somewhat more than one. My bet is closer to the latter than the
former.
Well, if you don't know the number of multihomers yo
> 1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
4 Million
> 2. Tell us how a routing table of that size (assuming 1 route per AS)
> will scale based on reasonable extrapolations of today's technology.
SUP720-3BXL says 1M (500K v6) now, doesn't seem too much of a stretch
to 4M over many years
b
I don't think the point is that every thing could be connected to the
Internet but that the worry that 2 things can't be connected and ISP's get
to charge stupid fees for a static IP and that some countries other than the
US are severely starved for IP addresses. The reason IPv6 adoption is so
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
This says that although there are 170k prefixes on the Internet,
there are
only 20k entities who actually need to announce IP space. There is
only
one explanation for such a large
On Sep 11, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11-sep-2005, at 8:31, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and
own address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each
home in the world being multihomed, it just doesn't s
On 11-sep-2005, at 14:40, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
And seriously, does the main assumption of v6, that every single
toaster out there is going to become a v6 host, really not scare
anyone?
Nope. I guess people have other things that scare them... See subject.
Giving IP connectivity to
Hi,
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
This says that although there are 170k prefixes on the Internet,
there are
only 20k entities who actually need to announce IP space. There is
only
one explanation for such a large difference (8.5x) between these two
numbers, nam
On Sep 11, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Alan Spicer wrote:
love IPv6 more than you guys would ever give to a sole. Shoot I
could run a big ISP on a single 48. God bless America.
Bring it on... Why are you so afraid?
Inability to run our networks because the design lacks essential
elements.
But fe
randy, all,
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:11:50AM +0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> Re: From: Todd Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> but, the geolocation stuff is cool. could it have told us, in
> an operationally useful/timely manner, that at&t had moved from
> new jersey to spain the other day?
yes, wit
On 11-sep-2005, at 8:31, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and
own address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each
home in the world being multihomed, it just doesn't scale.
We disagree. And your hyperbole doesn't come close
On 9/11/05, Alan Spicer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> love IPv6 more than you guys would ever give to a sole. Shoot I could run a
>
> big ISP on a single 48. God bless America.
>
Instead, you have small end sites getting /48s from tunnel providers,
and then running maybe two or three hosts o
love IPv6 more than you guys would ever give to a sole. Shoot I could run a
big ISP on a single 48. God bless America.
Bring it on... Why are you so afraid?
---
Alan Spicer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Gibbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sen
On 10-Sep-2005, at 21:42, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Yes, according to the current RIR policies. [So the determination
of "unworthy" above has been made, in effect, by RIR members.]
And this is why v6 has failed and will continue to fail.
It
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 06:32:58AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and own
> address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each home in the
> world being multihomed, it just doesn't scale.
>
> IPv6 solved the addressing
49 matches
Mail list logo
