subject:"Re\: \[AFMUG\] IPv6"

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 Status

2018-02-28 Thread Paul Stewart

Yeah interesting ... been a while since I've done that myself ... surprised on 
a few of them (Amazon for example) not working as they typically have 

We need more ISP's to get on the IPv6 bandwagon though .. 

Paul


On 2018-02-27, 6:43 PM, "Af on behalf of Sterling Jacobson" 
 wrote:

Just for the hell of it I turned off IPv4 and just left IPv6 running on my 
public interface on my computer.

It's interesting to see what actually loads.

My Exchange client still works, but office265.com doesn't.

The Microsoft store works though, so I guess there are priorities, lol!

Facebook works, most google stuff works.

I'm using google IPv6 DNS though, so maybe they are discriminating...

Most of my bank URLs do not work.

Ebay doesn't work either.

Amazon no worky.

Youtube works, but interestingly a lot of their inline ads don't, so maybe 
that's a bonus.

My own website doesn't work.

Sonar works, as does my front page of my billing portal since I enabled 
IPv6 myself on it.
DigitalOcean works.

My response and routing for things that do work seem a lot better.

Blizzard launcher doesn't connect at all, so online gaming is out for that 
set of games anyways.

Speedtest.net doesn't work.

Most of these are saying ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED or something similar with 
DNS like DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6

2018-02-05 Thread Paul Stewart

Dual stack for sure without a doubt ….

 

 

From: Af  on behalf of Adam Moffett 
Reply-To: 
Date: Friday, February 2, 2018 at 5:03 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] IPv6

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6

2018-02-02 Thread Jesse Dupont

Dual stack.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 3:26:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6

Yeah Dual Stack seemed like the obvious route to go.  Then I read T-Mobile went 
to this XLAT stuff.on second pass it still seems like dual stack is a 
no-brainer.

-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 2/2/2018 5:13:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6

Yes

There is really no extra work or expense involved in Dual Stack.  Just turn it 
on and let the customers use what they will use.

You have to accommodate V4 somehow.  We are going to NAT everything in the V4 
world to keep our continuing investment in IPs where it is at.

464xlat seems interesting.  I have been talking about a magic box for a couple 
of years now, but after taking a closer look and actually making progress, DS + 
NAT seems to be the most reasonable as far as cost and a known working solution.

Still waiting for Dennis to invent the magic box.  V6 only everywhere for 
everything inside your network.
Magic box recognizes, diverts and fixes sessions that need access to the old V4 
world.

From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 3:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] IPv6

If you were starting a new network from the ground up today would you do Dual 
Stack, 464XLAT, or something else?

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6

2018-02-02 Thread Dennis Burgess

Dual stack i.

Dennis Burgess
www.linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – 
dmburg...@linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 4:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] IPv6

If you were starting a new network from the ground up today would you do Dual 
Stack, 464XLAT, or something else?

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6

2018-02-02 Thread Adam Moffett

Yeah Dual Stack seemed like the obvious route to go.  Then I read 
T-Mobile went to this XLAT stuff.on second pass it still seems like 
dual stack is a no-brainer.

-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 2/2/2018 5:13:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6

Yes

There is really no extra work or expense involved in Dual Stack.  Just 
turn it on and let the customers use what they will use.

You have to accommodate V4 somehow.  We are going to NAT everything in 
the V4 world to keep our continuing investment in IPs where it is at.

464xlat seems interesting.  I have been talking about a magic box for a 
couple of years now, but after taking a closer look and actually making 
progress, DS + NAT seems to be the most reasonable as far as cost and a 
known working solution.

Still waiting for Dennis to invent the magic box.  V6 only everywhere 
for everything inside your network.
Magic box recognizes, diverts and fixes sessions that need access to 
the old V4 world.

From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 3:03 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] IPv6

If you were starting a new network from the ground up today would you 
do Dual Stack, 464XLAT, or something else?

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6

2018-02-02 Thread chuck

Yes

There is really no extra work or expense involved in Dual Stack.  Just turn it 
on and let the customers use what they will use.  

You have to accommodate V4 somehow.  We are going to NAT everything in the V4 
world to keep our continuing investment in IPs where it is at.  

464xlat seems interesting.  I have been talking about a magic box for a couple 
of years now, but after taking a closer look and actually making progress, DS + 
NAT seems to be the most reasonable as far as cost and a known working 
solution.  

Still waiting for Dennis to invent the magic box.  V6 only everywhere for 
everything inside your network.  
Magic box recognizes, diverts and fixes sessions that need access to the old V4 
world.  

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 3:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] IPv6

If you were starting a new network from the ground up today would you do Dual 
Stack, 464XLAT, or something else?

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 for management

2017-10-21 Thread Paul Stewart

+1 …  almost everything in our management networks (which are completely 
separate logically from any other networks) are dual stack.  Also for HTTPS 
it’s the only form of web based management permitted (and only on devices where 
web interface is the only way to manage it).

 

Paul

 

 

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of George Skorup 
<george.sko...@cbcast.com>
Reply-To: <af@afmug.com>
Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 7:34 PM
To: <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 for management

 

IMO, dual stack or forget IPv6 entirely.

On 10/19/2017 6:20 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

So, after the response to me mentioning https:// for device management, I 
figured I'd ask about the following: 

 

How about IPv6?   It's on my list as well to look at...Does anyone see any 
real need for having your management gear on IPv6 instead of IPv4, at least in 
the near term?
 

-- 

Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.Tel: 406-449-3345 | 
Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 for management

2017-10-20 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)

I meant 'didn't make it into the original rackinjector release'...
 Although this excercise is related to the design of the new base unit
product as well, since they are sharing a lot of the underlying code base.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> This is all sort of a juggling exercise
>
> I have roughly ~100 items on the feature/bug list, which didn't make it
> into the original base unit.   Some are small nitpicky fixes and/or
> cosmetic issues like 'fix scaling of logo on small screens'.  Others are
> feature adds.   I'm in the process of ordering the feature adds, so that
> important items are prioritized.
>
> https:// as an example has been pushed toward the bottom of the list (but
> definitely not on the shouldn't do unless I find a use case list).   IPv6
> is somewhat higher at this point.
>
> Don't be surprised to see a few more of these type of 'informal surveys'
> over the next few days as I work through this list.
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Dave  wrote:
>
>> for those of who do use its a yes or +1
>> but for the ones who dont then no
>> :}
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2017 06:20 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>>
>> So, after the response to me mentioning https:// for device management,
>> I figured I'd ask about the following:
>>
>> How about IPv6?   It's on my list as well to look at...Does anyone
>> see any real need for having your management gear on IPv6 instead of IPv4,
>> at least in the near term?
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 for management

2017-10-20 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)

This is all sort of a juggling exercise

I have roughly ~100 items on the feature/bug list, which didn't make it
into the original base unit.   Some are small nitpicky fixes and/or
cosmetic issues like 'fix scaling of logo on small screens'.  Others are
feature adds.   I'm in the process of ordering the feature adds, so that
important items are prioritized.

https:// as an example has been pushed toward the bottom of the list (but
definitely not on the shouldn't do unless I find a use case list).   IPv6
is somewhat higher at this point.

Don't be surprised to see a few more of these type of 'informal surveys'
over the next few days as I work through this list.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Dave  wrote:

> for those of who do use its a yes or +1
> but for the ones who dont then no
> :}
>
>
> On 10/19/2017 06:20 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>
> So, after the response to me mentioning https:// for device management, I
> figured I'd ask about the following:
>
> How about IPv6?   It's on my list as well to look at...Does anyone see
> any real need for having your management gear on IPv6 instead of IPv4, at
> least in the near term?
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>
> --
>

-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 for management

2017-10-20 Thread Dave


for those of who do use its a yes or +1
but for the ones who dont then no
:}


On 10/19/2017 06:20 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
So, after the response to me mentioning https:// for device 
management, I figured I'd ask about the following:


How about IPv6?   It's on my list as well to look at... Does anyone 
see any real need for having your management gear on IPv6 instead of 
IPv4, at least in the near term?


--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com  | 
http://www.packetflux.com 
 
 





--

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 for management

2017-10-19 Thread Mathew Howard

I could see it making sense to move management gear to IPv6 eventually, but
the only real reason that I could see why I'd want to do that would be if I
wasn't using IPv4 for management at all... and it's probably not something
that's going to be in widespread use any time soon.

Currently, the vast majority of our device management is on private IPv4
addresses, and I like it that way. If for some reason, I needed to have
management interfaces on public IPs, then I would certainly want to start
looking at using IPv6 for that, but at this point, I really have no desire
to put things on public IPs that don't need to be, anyway.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:34 PM, George Skorup 
wrote:

> IMO, dual stack or forget IPv6 entirely.
>
> On 10/19/2017 6:20 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>
> So, after the response to me mentioning https:// for device management, I
> figured I'd ask about the following:
>
> How about IPv6?   It's on my list as well to look at...Does anyone see
> any real need for having your management gear on IPv6 instead of IPv4, at
> least in the near term?
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 for management

2017-10-19 Thread can...@believewireless.net

I don't think we'd use it for management on our equipment. I think sticking
with v4 for it's simplicity
is better. Much easier to remember a v4 private address space over a v6
address. Once we get
over a couple billion devices, I'm sure we'll reconsider.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 10/19/17 16:20, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>
>> How about IPv6?   It's on my list as well to look at...Does anyone
>> see any real need for having your management gear on IPv6 instead of IPv4,
>> at least in the near term?
>>
>
>
> I use it. Probably the minority though.
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 for management

2017-10-19 Thread George Skorup


IMO, dual stack or forget IPv6 entirely.

On 10/19/2017 6:20 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
So, after the response to me mentioning https:// for device 
management, I figured I'd ask about the following:


How about IPv6?   It's on my list as well to look at... Does anyone 
see any real need for having your management gear on IPv6 instead of 
IPv4, at least in the near term?


--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com  | 
http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 for management

2017-10-19 Thread Seth Mattinen


On 10/19/17 16:20, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
How about IPv6?   It's on my list as well to look at...    Does anyone 
see any real need for having your management gear on IPv6 instead of 
IPv4, at least in the near term?



I use it. Probably the minority though.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning

2017-03-17 Thread Chuck McCown

Give Darrin crap.

From: Sterling Jacobson 
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:25 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning

I had Dennis with LinkTechs plan and deploy my IPv6 using Mikrotik 
routers/routerboards.

I highly recommend Dennis and his team for this, very smooth with the BGP, MPLS 
and OSPF build for handly IPv6.

It just works now, though I’m haven’t fully tested a BGP/partner fail on IPv6 
because ONE of my upstreams (caugh caugh CHUCK) doesn’t route IPv6 yet.

It is working very well though the one provider, native IPv6, dual stacked of 
course because the internet sucks and doesn’t host everything in IPv6 yet.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 5:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning

More to read/learn. Thanks.

Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Paul Stewart
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. März 2017 11:58
An: Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning

This answer varies of course …. one thing with ICMPv6 though is to make sure 
you allow more than just echo/reply … take a look at 
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4890.txt

  On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:44 AM, Stefan Englhardt <s...@genias.net> wrote:

  Yes we are late but none of our customer needed/wanted ipv6 until now.

  So now we are considering our address planning for our infrastructure.

  With IPV4 we use private addresses with small subnets between routers.

  With IPV6 we are considering using official unicast adresses and a /120 for 
each subnet. 

  A packetfilter at the Border routers allowing only icmp echo/reply to the /56 
containing

  this infrastructure subnets.

  What is best practice for a IPV6 addressing in a WISP network?

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning

2017-03-17 Thread Sterling Jacobson

I had Dennis with LinkTechs plan and deploy my IPv6 using Mikrotik 
routers/routerboards.
I highly recommend Dennis and his team for this, very smooth with the BGP, MPLS 
and OSPF build for handly IPv6.
It just works now, though I’m haven’t fully tested a BGP/partner fail on IPv6 
because ONE of my upstreams (caugh caugh CHUCK) doesn’t route IPv6 yet.

It is working very well though the one provider, native IPv6, dual stacked of 
course because the internet sucks and doesn’t host everything in IPv6 yet.


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 5:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning

More to read/learn. Thanks.

Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Paul Stewart
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. März 2017 11:58
An: Animal Farm <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning

This answer varies of course …. one thing with ICMPv6 though is to make sure 
you allow more than just echo/reply … take a look at 
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4890.txt


On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:44 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
<s...@genias.net<mailto:s...@genias.net>> wrote:

Yes we are late but none of our customer needed/wanted ipv6 until now.
So now we are considering our address planning for our infrastructure.
With IPV4 we use private addresses with small subnets between routers.

With IPV6 we are considering using official unicast adresses and a /120 for 
each subnet.
A packetfilter at the Border routers allowing only icmp echo/reply to the /56 
containing
this infrastructure subnets.

What is best practice for a IPV6 addressing in a WISP network?

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning

2017-03-17 Thread Stefan Englhardt

More to read/learn. Thanks.



Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Paul Stewart
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. März 2017 11:58
An: Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning



This answer varies of course …. one thing with ICMPv6 though is to make sure 
you allow more than just echo/reply … take a look at 
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4890.txt





On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:44 AM, Stefan Englhardt <s...@genias.net 
<mailto:s...@genias.net> > wrote:



Yes we are late but none of our customer needed/wanted ipv6 until now.

So now we are considering our address planning for our infrastructure.

With IPV4 we use private addresses with small subnets between routers.



With IPV6 we are considering using official unicast adresses and a /120 for 
each subnet.

A packetfilter at the Border routers allowing only icmp echo/reply to the /56 
containing

this infrastructure subnets.



What is best practice for a IPV6 addressing in a WISP network?

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 Address planning

2017-03-17 Thread Paul Stewart

This answer varies of course …. one thing with ICMPv6 though is to make sure 
you allow more than just echo/reply … take a look at 
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4890.txt 


> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:44 AM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:
> 
> Yes we are late but none of our customer needed/wanted ipv6 until now.
> So now we are considering our address planning for our infrastructure.
> With IPV4 we use private addresses with small subnets between routers.
>  
> With IPV6 we are considering using official unicast adresses and a /120 for 
> each subnet. 
> A packetfilter at the Border routers allowing only icmp echo/reply to the /56 
> containing
> this infrastructure subnets.
>  
> What is best practice for a IPV6 addressing in a WISP network?

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 deploymernt

2016-10-28 Thread Lewis Bergman

It appears S3 doesn't not support V6 while Route53, the DNS does. So..kind
of getting there.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:05 AM Dennis Burgess 
wrote:

> yes
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *
>
> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
>  –
> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
>
>
>
> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
>
> Radio Frequiency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
>
> Office: 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270>
>
> E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2016 7:04 PM
>
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt
>
>
>
> That's just the storage, right, not actual compute?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
>
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:19:03 PM
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt
>
> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-available-ipv6-support-for-amazon-s3/
>
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2016 2:49 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
> Anyone in AWS won't, given AWS's poor to no IPv6 support.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Jason Wilson" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:48:07 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt
>
> Is sonar the only CRM that supports IPV6?
>
>
>
> I know currently Visp Does not.
>
>
> Jason Wilson
>
> Remotely Located
>
> Providing High Speed Internet to out of the way places.
>
> 530-651-1736
>
> 530-748-9608 Cell
>
> www.remotelylocated.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Simon Westlake 
> wrote:
>
> What do you mean, 'even Sonar'? We aren't chopped liver!
>
> On 10/27/2016 2:12 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
>
> I would totally agree here. We have deployed IPv6 quite a bit for clients,
> our networks etc.  However, the major issue is the hosting companies, most
> big guys, google, amazon, etc all support IPv6, heck even Sonar does now!
> Hahah, but until the cost of IPv4 addresses is so high that no one; even
> the major guys can afford it, IPv6 deployment will keep stalling.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *
>
> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
>  –
> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
>
>
>
> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
>
> Radio Frequiency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
>
> Office: 314-735-0270
>
> E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Stewart
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:00 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt
>
>
>
> Actually in my opinion what we need is better IPv6 adoption in general and
> this becomes a non-problem quickly :)
>
>
>
> I know .. good theory … and “we” are getting better though …. a lot of
> providers have gotten their heads out of the clouds in the past few years
> alone ….
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>
>
> What we all need, is a low cost solution to stop needing more V4 IPs.
>
>
>
> If it is CGN at the edge with a limited pool of V4, so be it.
>
>
>
> But I want a solid solution that can be trusted.
>
> And I want and expert to come drop it into my company.
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Stewart
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2016 11:23 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 deploymernt

2016-10-28 Thread Dennis Burgess

yes


Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant
MikroTik Certified 
Trainer/Consultant
 – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
Radio Frequiency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 7:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt

That's just the storage, right, not actual compute?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Josh Reynolds" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:19:03 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-available-ipv6-support-for-amazon-s3/

On Oct 27, 2016 2:49 PM, "Mike Hammett" 
> wrote:
Anyone in AWS won't, given AWS's poor to no IPv6 support.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Jason Wilson" 
>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:48:07 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt
Is sonar the only CRM that supports IPV6?

I know currently Visp Does not.

[http://remotelylocated.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cropped-Remotely-Located-Logo.jpg]
Jason Wilson
Remotely Located
Providing High Speed Internet to out of the way places.
530-651-1736
530-748-9608 Cell
www.remotelylocated.com

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Simon Westlake 
> wrote:
What do you mean, 'even Sonar'? We aren't chopped liver!
On 10/27/2016 2:12 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
I would totally agree here. We have deployed IPv6 quite a bit for clients, our 
networks etc.  However, the major issue is the hosting companies, most big 
guys, google, amazon, etc all support IPv6, heck even Sonar does now! Hahah, 
but until the cost of IPv4 addresses is so high that no one; even the major 
guys can afford it, IPv6 deployment will keep stalling.


Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant
MikroTik Certified 
Trainer/Consultant
 – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
Radio Frequiency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:00 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt

Actually in my opinion what we need is better IPv6

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 Multicast STOHP!

2016-09-16 Thread Cassidy B. Larson

Broadcast isn’t the same as Multicast.
IPv6 uses multicast exclusively for identifying things that IPv4 uses 
Broadcasts for.
If you provide what Multicast addresses are the most talkative we can identify 
what it is.

> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> I'm not getting what all this chatter is on IPv6 on a segment of network.
> 
> I know I only have about 10-20 IPv6 client routers actually grabbing an 
> address on any given segment of my network.
> 
> But this 5-10Mbps of broadcast traffic seems very excessive.
> 
> Any way to stop this?
> 
> My IPv6 stuff is all running on Mikrotik

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Josh Reynolds

We're going to be dual stack. A lot of broken stuff / sites in v6
land, and no AWS :[

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> Commencing new project:
> Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
> This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread David

We are also doing this with a new site we just deployed. It has a full 
cluster of 5Ghz,3.65 and 900 Access points.

Talk about a Giga Tower LOL


On 06/13/2016 11:36 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:

V6 and carry on.
V4 can all go to district 9.
*From:* Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>
*Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2016 10:23 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come
No one ever got fired for buying IBM or Cisco, or for having an IPv4 
website.
Speaking of which, www.ibm.com <http://www.ibm.com> doesn’t seem to 
have any  records.  Nor does www.godaddy.com 
<http://www.godaddy.com>. Perhaps an IPv4 only site keeps out the 
riff-raff.

*From:* Chuck McCown <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>
*Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2016 11:15 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come
Hmmm, would think Godaddy would have taken care of that for me.
*From:* Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>
*Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2016 10:08 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come
IPv4 only.  Like www.mccowntech.com <http://www.mccowntech.com>?
*From:* Chuck McCown <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>
*Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2016 11:01 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come
Only when the end is V4 only.  We hear stats that all US domains are 
already 60-80% V6.

*From:* Joe Novak <mailto:jno...@lrcomm.com>
*Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2016 9:56 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come
are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com 
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:


Commencing new project:
Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Chuck McCown

V6 and carry on.  

V4 can all go to district 9.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:23 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

No one ever got fired for buying IBM or Cisco, or for having an IPv4 website.

Speaking of which, www.ibm.com doesn’t seem to have any  records.  Nor does 
www.godaddy.com.  Perhaps an IPv4 only site keeps out the riff-raff.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:15 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

Hmmm, would think Godaddy would have taken care of that for me.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

IPv4 only.  Like www.mccowntech.com?

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

Only when the end is V4 only.  We hear stats that all US domains are already 
60-80% V6.

From: Joe Novak 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Commencing new project:
  Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
  This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Ken Hohhof

No one ever got fired for buying IBM or Cisco, or for having an IPv4 website.

Speaking of which, www.ibm.com doesn’t seem to have any  records.  Nor does 
www.godaddy.com.  Perhaps an IPv4 only site keeps out the riff-raff.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:15 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

Hmmm, would think Godaddy would have taken care of that for me.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

IPv4 only.  Like www.mccowntech.com?

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

Only when the end is V4 only.  We hear stats that all US domains are already 
60-80% V6.

From: Joe Novak 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Commencing new project:
  Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
  This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread John Babineaux

We are making the push to dual stack it’s exciting



John Babineaux

System Administrator

REACH4 Communications | Website:  <http://www.reach4com.com/> www.REACH4Com.com

Phone: 337-783-3436 x105 | Email: john.babine...@reach4com.com 

927 N Parkerson Ave, Crowley, LA 70526

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:15 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

 

Hmmm, would think Godaddy would have taken care of that for me.  

 

From: Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>  

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:08 AM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

 

IPv4 only.  Like www.mccowntech.com?

 

 

From: Chuck McCown <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>  

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:01 AM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

 

Only when the end is V4 only.  We hear stats that all US domains are already 
60-80% V6.

 

From: Joe Novak <mailto:jno...@lrcomm.com>  

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:56 AM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

 

are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?

 

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

Commencing new project:

Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.

This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Chuck McCown

Hmmm, would think Godaddy would have taken care of that for me.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

IPv4 only.  Like www.mccowntech.com?

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

Only when the end is V4 only.  We hear stats that all US domains are already 
60-80% V6.

From: Joe Novak 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Commencing new project:
  Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
  This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Chuck McCown

We have a couple of options.  The cisco consultant prefers one of them and I am 
not well versed enough to know which.  

From: Cassidy B. Larson 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:07 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

What’re you using for DNS64/NAT64 or whatever else you’re using to get back to 
v4 land? 

  On Jun 13, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Only when the end is V4 only.  We hear stats that all US domains are already 
60-80% V6.

  From: Joe Novak 
  Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:56 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

  are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?

  On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

Commencing new project:
Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Ken Hohhof

IPv4 only.  Like www.mccowntech.com?

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

Only when the end is V4 only.  We hear stats that all US domains are already 
60-80% V6.

From: Joe Novak 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Commencing new project:
  Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
  This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Cassidy B. Larson

What’re you using for DNS64/NAT64 or whatever else you’re using to get back to 
v4 land?

> On Jun 13, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
> 
> Only when the end is V4 only.  We hear stats that all US domains are already 
> 60-80% V6.
> 
> From: Joe Novak <mailto:jno...@lrcomm.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:56 AM
> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come
> 
> are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?
> 
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com 
> <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
>> Commencing new project:
>> Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
>> This is gonna hurt.
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Bill Prince


My truck has a V6. It's great. Turbo'd though.


bp


On 6/13/2016 8:54 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Commencing new project:
Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Chuck McCown

Only when the end is V4 only.  We hear stats that all US domains are already 
60-80% V6.

From: Joe Novak 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Commencing new project:
  Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
  This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Ty Featherling

Gonna have to do something.

-Ty



-Ty

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Joe Novak  wrote:

> are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Commencing new project:
>> Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
>> This is gonna hurt.
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Joe Novak

are you going to be natting IPV6 > IPV4 at the edge?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Commencing new project:
> Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
> This is gonna hurt.
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Ty Featherling

A lot.

-Ty



-Ty

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Commencing new project:
> Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
> This is gonna hurt.
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPV6 here we come

2016-06-13 Thread Robert


the "Jumping in with both feet" project?


On 6/13/16 8:54 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Commencing new project:
Going to attempt to provision all new customers on V6 only.
This is gonna hurt.

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 fun....

2016-06-08 Thread Sterling Jacobson

I don’t think I’ve ever seen that error either, running a couple of MT with 
static IPv6 allocations, and about 100 clients on DHCPv6.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of John Babineaux
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 2:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 fun

All I have is the IPv6 address configured

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 fun

can u provide your config snippet ?

FYI, no such issues with MT, we have quiet a few ipv6 peers running on a 
multiple units.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>

From: "John Babineaux" 
<john.babine...@reach4com.com<mailto:john.babine...@reach4com.com>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:44:57 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] IPv6 fun
I am just starting an IPv6 connection with one of our upstream providers.
I have a mikrotik router that they are connecting to on a fibre sfp port with 
ipv4 working.
They gave me an IP address and I added it to the port.  I am getting a 
“duplicate address detected” error on the IP.
They swear it’s not a duplicate and Mikrotik tells me they use standards.  I 
don’t know what to do at this point to get it right.
I can unplug the port, disable then enable the port, and plug it in and it 
works….. but if the router reboots or if I disable the port for any reason we 
get the same error.
I just lit up a second IPv6 connection with the same provider.  It’s on a 
different network and it’s doing the same error.

Does anyone know of a problem with Mikrotik and IPv6 or is my provider not 
configuring something correctly.
I also don’t have a loopback on that interface because I read somewhere that it 
could cause that issue.

John Babineaux
System Administrator
REACH4 Communications | Website: www.REACH4Com.com<http://www.reach4com.com/>
Phone: 337-783-3436 x105 | Email: 
john.babine...@reach4com.com<mailto:john.babine...@reach4com.com>
927 N Parkerson Ave, Crowley, LA 70526

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 fun....

2016-06-08 Thread John Babineaux

All I have is the IPv6 address configured

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 fun

can u provide your config snippet ? 

FYI, no such issues with MT, we have quiet a few ipv6 peers running on a 
multiple units.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

  _  

From: "John Babineaux" <john.babine...@reach4com.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:44:57 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] IPv6 fun

I am just starting an IPv6 connection with one of our upstream providers. 

I have a mikrotik router that they are connecting to on a fibre sfp port with 
ipv4 working. 

They gave me an IP address and I added it to the port.  I am getting a 
“duplicate address detected” error on the IP. 

They swear it’s not a duplicate and Mikrotik tells me they use standards.  I 
don’t know what to do at this point to get it right. 

I can unplug the port, disable then enable the port, and plug it in and it 
works….. but if the router reboots or if I disable the port for any reason we 
get the same error. 

I just lit up a second IPv6 connection with the same provider.  It’s on a 
different network and it’s doing the same error.

Does anyone know of a problem with Mikrotik and IPv6 or is my provider not 
configuring something correctly.

I also don’t have a loopback on that interface because I read somewhere that it 
could cause that issue.

John Babineaux

System Administrator

REACH4 Communications | Website:  <http://www.reach4com.com/> www.REACH4Com.com

Phone: 337-783-3436 x105 | Email: john.babine...@reach4com.com 

927 N Parkerson Ave, Crowley, LA 70526

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 fun....

2016-06-08 Thread Faisal Imtiaz

can u provide your config snippet ? 

FYI, no such issues with MT, we have quiet a few ipv6 peers running on a 
multiple units. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "John Babineaux" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:44:57 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] IPv6 fun

> I am just starting an IPv6 connection with one of our upstream providers.

> I have a mikrotik router that they are connecting to on a fibre sfp port with
> ipv4 working.

> They gave me an IP address and I added it to the port. I am getting a 
> “duplicate
> address detected” error on the IP.

> They swear it’s not a duplicate and Mikrotik tells me they use standards. I
> don’t know what to do at this point to get it right.

> I can unplug the port, disable then enable the port, and plug it in and it
> works….. but if the router reboots or if I disable the port for any reason we
> get the same error.

> I just lit up a second IPv6 connection with the same provider. It’s on a
> different network and it’s doing the same error.

> Does anyone know of a problem with Mikrotik and IPv6 or is my provider not
> configuring something correctly.

> I also don’t have a loopback on that interface because I read somewhere that 
> it
> could cause that issue.

> 

> John Babineaux

> System Administrator

> REACH4 Communications | Website: www.REACH4Com.com

> Phone: 337-783-3436 x105 | Email: john.babine...@reach4com.com

> 927 N Parkerson Ave, Crowley, LA 70526

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-19 Thread Ty Featherling

Cassidy deduced the MAC earlier in the thread. I found that thread in the
switch table to determine which AP it was. I confirmed it was found in the
bridge table of the AP on the WLAN0 interface. From there there isn't an
easy way to trace it to a single radio. I used to log into each radio and
check its bridge table for the MAC but now I run a script to dump all of
the bridge tables to all the radios and grep for the offending mac. Led me
right to the right IP address.

-Ty



-Ty

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>
wrote:

> How did you trace that to the customer/port?
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ty Featherling
> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 7:05 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2
>
>
>
> Forgot to update: had the customer reboot his router and the traffic
> disappeared. Watching it carefully for a return but good for 24 hrs so far.
>
> -Ty
>
> On Feb 18, 2016 2:33 PM, "David" <dmilho...@wletc.com> wrote:
>
> I like this guy!
>
> On 02/18/2016 12:21 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> It just really, REALLY wants everyone to know it exists. Cute little thing.
>
>
>
> Set it on fire.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
> Velociter Wireless
>
> 209-838-1221 x115
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Ty Featherling
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:08 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2
>
>
>
> Found the offending customer and looking at their radio I can see the
> actual traffic is about 5Mbps worth but the traffic shaping knocks it down
> to 1.5 before it reaches our network. Makes me think this is more like a
> malfunctioning router than a feature.
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one broadcast
> domain.
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <c...@infowest.com>
> wrote:
>
> How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch
> should only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can
> find the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-19 Thread Sterling Jacobson

How did you trace that to the customer/port?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ty Featherling
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 7:05 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

Forgot to update: had the customer reboot his router and the traffic 
disappeared. Watching it carefully for a return but good for 24 hrs so far.

-Ty
On Feb 18, 2016 2:33 PM, "David" 
<dmilho...@wletc.com<mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com>> wrote:
I like this guy!

On 02/18/2016 12:21 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
It just really, REALLY wants everyone to know it exists. Cute little thing.

Set it on fire.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator
Velociter Wireless
209-838-1221 x115

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ty Featherling
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

Found the offending customer and looking at their radio I can see the actual 
traffic is about 5Mbps worth but the traffic shaping knocks it down to 1.5 
before it reaches our network. Makes me think this is more like a 
malfunctioning router than a feature.

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ty Featherling 
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one broadcast 
domain.

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson 
<c...@infowest.com<mailto:c...@infowest.com>> wrote:
How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch should 
only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling 
> <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can find 
> the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-19 Thread Ty Featherling

Forgot to update: had the customer reboot his router and the traffic
disappeared. Watching it carefully for a return but good for 24 hrs so far.

-Ty
On Feb 18, 2016 2:33 PM, "David" <dmilho...@wletc.com> wrote:

> I like this guy!
>
>
> On 02/18/2016 12:21 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> It just really, REALLY wants everyone to know it exists. Cute little thing.
>
>
>
> Set it on fire.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
> Velociter Wireless
>
> 209-838-1221 x115
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Ty Featherling
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:08 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2
>
>
>
> Found the offending customer and looking at their radio I can see the
> actual traffic is about 5Mbps worth but the traffic shaping knocks it down
> to 1.5 before it reaches our network. Makes me think this is more like a
> malfunctioning router than a feature.
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one broadcast
> domain.
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <c...@infowest.com>
> wrote:
>
> How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch
> should only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can
> find the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-18 Thread David

I like this guy!

On 02/18/2016 12:21 PM, Chris Wright wrote:

It just really, REALLY wants everyone to know it exists. Cute little 
thing.

Set it on fire.

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

Velociter Wireless

209-838-1221 x115

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ty Featherling
*Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:08 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

Found the offending customer and looking at their radio I can see the 
actual traffic is about 5Mbps worth but the traffic shaping knocks it 
down to 1.5 before it reaches our network. Makes me think this is more 
like a malfunctioning router than a feature.

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ty Featherling 
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one 
broadcast domain.

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <c...@infowest.com 
<mailto:c...@infowest.com>> wrote:

How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch 
should only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that 
multicast IP.

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling 
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>
> So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I 
can find the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.

>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-18 Thread Paul Stewart

ROFL .. that’s awesome… 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Wright
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 1:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

It just really, REALLY wants everyone to know it exists. Cute little thing.

Set it on fire.

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

Velociter Wireless

209-838-1221 x115

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ty Featherling
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

Found the offending customer and looking at their radio I can see the actual 
traffic is about 5Mbps worth but the traffic shaping knocks it down to 1.5 
before it reaches our network. Makes me think this is more like a 
malfunctioning router than a feature.

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com 
<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> > wrote:

1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one broadcast 
domain. 

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <c...@infowest.com 
<mailto:c...@infowest.com> > wrote:

How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch should 
only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can find 
> the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-18 Thread Paul Stewart

Sounds about right ….. there’s a lot of shit routers on the market more than 
ever, especially with IPv6 stuff unfortunately …

We just finished an internal study of several different common household 
routers and how they handle IPv6 – was a disappointing set of results.  Anybody 
can say “IPv6 compatible” etc for marketing … we tested if they can actually 
function properly without breaking…  

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ty Featherling
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 1:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

Found the offending customer and looking at their radio I can see the actual 
traffic is about 5Mbps worth but the traffic shaping knocks it down to 1.5 
before it reaches our network. Makes me think this is more like a 
malfunctioning router than a feature.

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com 
<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> > wrote:

1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one broadcast 
domain. 

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <c...@infowest.com 
<mailto:c...@infowest.com> > wrote:

How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch should 
only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can find 
> the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-18 Thread Ty Featherling

Overachiever.

-Ty



-Ty

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote:

> It just really, REALLY wants everyone to know it exists. Cute little thing.
>
>
>
> Set it on fire.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
> Velociter Wireless
>
> 209-838-1221 x115
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ty Featherling
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:08 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2
>
>
>
> Found the offending customer and looking at their radio I can see the
> actual traffic is about 5Mbps worth but the traffic shaping knocks it down
> to 1.5 before it reaches our network. Makes me think this is more like a
> malfunctioning router than a feature.
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one broadcast
> domain.
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <c...@infowest.com>
> wrote:
>
> How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch
> should only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can
> find the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-18 Thread Chris Wright

It just really, REALLY wants everyone to know it exists. Cute little thing.

Set it on fire.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator
Velociter Wireless
209-838-1221 x115

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ty Featherling
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

Found the offending customer and looking at their radio I can see the actual 
traffic is about 5Mbps worth but the traffic shaping knocks it down to 1.5 
before it reaches our network. Makes me think this is more like a 
malfunctioning router than a feature.

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ty Featherling 
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one broadcast 
domain.

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson 
<c...@infowest.com<mailto:c...@infowest.com>> wrote:
How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch should 
only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling 
> <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can find 
> the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-18 Thread Ty Featherling

Found the offending customer and looking at their radio I can see the
actual traffic is about 5Mbps worth but the traffic shaping knocks it down
to 1.5 before it reaches our network. Makes me think this is more like a
malfunctioning router than a feature.

-Ty

-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ty Featherling 
wrote:

> 1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one broadcast
> domain.
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson 
> wrote:
>
>> How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch
>> should only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can
>> find the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-17 Thread Ty Featherling

1 layer 2 network per tower. All APs and CPE bridged to that one broadcast
domain.

-Ty



-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Cassidy B. Larson  wrote:

> How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch
> should only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling 
> wrote:
> >
> > So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can
> find the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-17 Thread Cassidy B. Larson

How big is your layer2 network?  Ideally, with multicast, your switch should 
only be sending it to the hosts that subscribe to that multicast IP.

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Ty Featherling  wrote:
> 
> So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can find 
> the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-17 Thread Ty Featherling

So it's DHCPv6 discovery? Why the hell so much traffic then? If I can find
the source radio I will definitely turn off multicast. Good idea.

-Ty



-Ty

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Cassidy B. Larson 
wrote:

> Look for the mac: a813.430a.5950 I think. That’s the source MAC, assuming
> I flipped the right bit.  I know the last 8 are right at least.
>
> You could just turn off multicast on his radio or the AP, but his router
> is looking for a DHCP server and sending to that multicast address in
> question.
> If you turn off multicast IPv6 will fail to function as it relies on
> multicast to function.. no more broadcasts! :)
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Ty Featherling 
> wrote:
> >
> > A few times now I have noticed all customers in a given broadcast domain
> all seeing download traffic at about 1.5Mbps. My gut reaction is broadcast
> traffic of some sort so I go to Torch on the Mikrotik router at that site.
> What I saw that first time is the same thing I have seen every time since
> and what is shown in the attached image. IPv6 traffic from some IPv6 host's
> link-local address to ff01::1:2 with a rate that matches the traffic I am
> seeing everywhere. I enable IPv6 on that router if it isn't already and
> just add a firewall rule that drops all IPv6 traffic since I am not running
> any on network at this time. But what is it?
> >
> >  It looked to me like an IPv6 broadcast address of some type so I
> googled it and found:
> >
> > FF02::1:2 All DHCPv6 agents (servers and relays) within the link-local
> scope
> >
> > This makes sense since I bet it is coming from a customer's router on
> that segment. Is this device malfunctioning, plugged in backwards, or what?
> How can I use the Mikrotik to narrow down where it it located? There isn't
> a mac-table for IPv6 that I can find.
> >
> > Anyone else seen this?
> >
> >
> > -Ty
> > 
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-17 Thread Cassidy B. Larson

Look for the mac: a813.430a.5950 I think. That’s the source MAC, assuming I 
flipped the right bit.  I know the last 8 are right at least.

You could just turn off multicast on his radio or the AP, but his router is 
looking for a DHCP server and sending to that multicast address in question.
If you turn off multicast IPv6 will fail to function as it relies on multicast 
to function.. no more broadcasts! :)




> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Ty Featherling  wrote:
> 
> A few times now I have noticed all customers in a given broadcast domain all 
> seeing download traffic at about 1.5Mbps. My gut reaction is broadcast 
> traffic of some sort so I go to Torch on the Mikrotik router at that site. 
> What I saw that first time is the same thing I have seen every time since and 
> what is shown in the attached image. IPv6 traffic from some IPv6 host's 
> link-local address to ff01::1:2 with a rate that matches the traffic I am 
> seeing everywhere. I enable IPv6 on that router if it isn't already and just 
> add a firewall rule that drops all IPv6 traffic since I am not running any on 
> network at this time. But what is it?
> 
>  It looked to me like an IPv6 broadcast address of some type so I googled it 
> and found:
> 
> FF02::1:2 All DHCPv6 agents (servers and relays) within the link-local scope
> 
> This makes sense since I bet it is coming from a customer's router on that 
> segment. Is this device malfunctioning, plugged in backwards, or what? How 
> can I use the Mikrotik to narrow down where it it located? There isn't a 
> mac-table for IPv6 that I can find.
> 
> Anyone else seen this?
> 
> 
> -Ty
>

Re: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

2016-02-17 Thread Sterling Jacobson

Yes, I see it too.

Was wondering exactly what is going on and how to ‘trim’ the chatter down.

It’s about a meg of traffic on my system too.

Dennis? Any ideas?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ty Featherling
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] IPv6 traffic to ff02::1:2

A few times now I have noticed all customers in a given broadcast domain all 
seeing download traffic at about 1.5Mbps. My gut reaction is broadcast traffic 
of some sort so I go to Torch on the Mikrotik router at that site. What I saw 
that first time is the same thing I have seen every time since and what is 
shown in the attached image. IPv6 traffic from some IPv6 host's link-local 
address to ff01::1:2 with a rate that matches the traffic I am seeing 
everywhere. I enable IPv6 on that router if it isn't already and just add a 
firewall rule that drops all IPv6 traffic since I am not running any on network 
at this time. But what is it?

 It looked to me like an IPv6 broadcast address of some type so I googled it 
and found:

FF02::1:2 All DHCPv6 agents (servers and relays) within the link-local scope

This makes sense since I bet it is coming from a customer's router on that 
segment. Is this device malfunctioning, plugged in backwards, or what? How can 
I use the Mikrotik to narrow down where it it located? There isn't a mac-table 
for IPv6 that I can find.

Anyone else seen this?


-Ty

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-18 Thread Paul Stewart

Cool.. have fun and good luck!

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

After doing some further reading about some of the standards within ipv6 and 
more over ipv4 and remembering what we did in early days of cisco 
OSPF or MPLS is the answer since OSPF is an interface discovery protocol very 
similar to ipv6 on how it finds its neighbours I could very easily just as you 
say dual stack it. I am working on that now.

thanks
Dave

On 09/17/2015 11:49 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:

You could look at a transition technology to carry the IPv4 over your IPv6, or 
create pseudo connections via MPLS– why not just dual stack everything?  It 
will be a lot easier :)

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Animal Farm  <mailto:af@afmug.com> <af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

Ok, 
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6. 
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple Backhaul for 
some great capacity but
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic over. Is this 
a hard thing to accomplish or 
are there any issues related to doing so.
I do have my own /32 block if that matters.

--

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-18 Thread David Milholen

I am doing 2 labs one with 6to4 turned up and without 6to4 like in the 
old days.

I looking to see which one will take a performance hit the worst.
I dont suspect either will but would be neat to find out.


On 9/18/2015 2:58 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:


Cool.. have fun and good luck!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *David
*Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2015 12:41 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

After doing some further reading about some of the standards within 
ipv6 and more over ipv4 and remembering what we did in early days of 
cisco
OSPF or MPLS is the answer since OSPF is an interface discovery 
protocol very similar to ipv6 on how it finds its neighbours I could 
very easily just as you say dual stack it. I am working on that now.


thanks
Dave

On 09/17/2015 11:49 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:

You could look at a transition technology to carry the IPv4 over
your IPv6, or create pseudo connections via MPLS– why not just
dual stack everything?  It will be a lot easier J

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *David
*Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:25 PM
*To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com> <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] ipv6 question

Ok,
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6.
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple
Backhaul for some great capacity but
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic
over. Is this a hard thing to accomplish or
are there any issues related to doing so.
I do have my own /32 block if that matters.



-- 



--

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-18 Thread David

After doing some further reading about some of the standards within ipv6 
and more over ipv4 and remembering what we did in early days of cisco
OSPF or MPLS is the answer since OSPF is an interface discovery protocol 
very similar to ipv6 on how it finds its neighbours I could very easily 
just as you say dual stack it. I am working on that now.


thanks
Dave


On 09/17/2015 11:49 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:


You could look at a transition technology to carry the IPv4 over your 
IPv6, or create pseudo connections via MPLS– why not just dual stack 
everything?  It will be a lot easier J


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *David
*Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:25 PM
*To:* Animal Farm 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] ipv6 question

Ok,
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6.
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple 
Backhaul for some great capacity but
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic 
over. Is this a hard thing to accomplish or

are there any issues related to doing so.
I do have my own /32 block if that matters.


--

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-17 Thread Mathew Howard

If you really had to, you could use private addresses for IPv4... I know
that can screw up some stuff, but it would be a lot easier than trying to
route it IPv4 over IPv6, and I'm guessing you'd run into some sort of weird
issues anyway.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> If you can't get more IPv4, dual stacking isn't really an option.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> --
> *From: *"Paul Stewart" <p...@paulstewart.org>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, September 17, 2015 11:49:14 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question
>
> You could look at a transition technology to carry the IPv4 over your
> IPv6, or create pseudo connections via MPLS– why not just dual stack
> everything?  It will be a lot easier J
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *David
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:25 PM
> *To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ipv6 question
>
>
>
> Ok,
> Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
> I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6.
> I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple Backhaul
> for some great capacity but
> I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic over. Is
> this a hard thing to accomplish or
> are there any issues related to doing so.
> I do have my own /32 block if that matters.
>
>
> --
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-17 Thread Chuck McCown

We are still stuck on IPV5...

From: David 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:25 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

Ok, 
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6. 
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple Backhaul for 
some great capacity but
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic over. Is this 
a hard thing to accomplish or 
are there any issues related to doing so.
I do have my own /32 block if that matters.

--

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-17 Thread Mathew Howard

I'm holding out for IPv7...

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> We are still stuck on IPV5...
>
> *From:* David 
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:25 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ipv6 question
>
> Ok,
> Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
> I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6.
> I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple Backhaul
> for some great capacity but
> I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic over. Is
> this a hard thing to accomplish or
> are there any issues related to doing so.
> I do have my own /32 block if that matters.
>
>
>
> --
>

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-17 Thread Mike Hammett

If you can't get more IPv4 , dual stacking isn't really an option. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Paul Stewart" <p...@paulstewart.org> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 11:49:14 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question 



You could look at a transition technology to carry the IPv4 over your IPv6, or 
create pseudo connections via MPLS– why not just dual stack everything? It will 
be a lot easier J 



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:25 PM 
To: Animal Farm <af@afmug.com> 
Subject: [AFMUG] ipv6 question 

Ok, 
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet? 
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6. 
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple Backhaul for 
some great capacity but 
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic over. Is this 
a hard thing to accomplish or 
are there any issues related to doing so. 
I do have my own /32 block if that matters. 




--

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-17 Thread Paul Stewart

Yes do David’s question … LOTS of it deployed…

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

We are still stuck on IPV5...

From: David <mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com>  

Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:25 AM

To: Animal Farm <mailto:af@afmug.com>  

Subject: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

Ok, 
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6. 
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple Backhaul for 
some great capacity but
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic over. Is this 
a hard thing to accomplish or 
are there any issues related to doing so.
I do have my own /32 block if that matters.

--

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-17 Thread David

Ok, we did this once when I was a wee lad studying to become a mad 
scientist in the Army using all cisco gear.
 Ipv6 was first introduced and we had the opportunity to work with it 
within our MSE/ATM networks.
Security was a big concern so it was readily abandoned for real 
deployments but in the training labs we
were able to push ipv4 over ipv6 between gateways and shortly AT was 
doing this within their networks.
I know it can be done I am wondering if anyone using mikrotik has done 
this and using OSPF in the process

for their ipv4 infrastructure.
No worries on getting more Ipv4 space for now. We have 2 x /20 blocks 
still plenty to go around.


If this will work for these new sites I will convert my entire net to 
it. This could resolve some of the said issues
by using 10.x.x.x/30 ptp networks for backbone structure. I think I may 
have to have a 6 to 4 tunnel configured
for this but I really don think it will be needed since all of the ptp 
stuff will remain in house.


I guess I will just fire up the mikrotik lab and rock it like its HOT :)

BWUAHAHAHAH!




On 09/17/2015 01:04 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:


Yes do David’s question … LOTS of it deployed…

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
*Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:56 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

We are still stuck on IPV5...

*From:*David <mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com>

*Sent:*Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:25 AM

*To:*Animal Farm <mailto:af@afmug.com>

*Subject:*[AFMUG] ipv6 question

Ok,
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6.
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple 
Backhaul for some great capacity but
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic 
over. Is this a hard thing to accomplish or

are there any issues related to doing so.
I do have my own /32 block if that matters.


--

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-17 Thread David

I think eventually I will move that way but I am trying to get my feet 
wet with just doing some simple in house public routing for now
Once I see that performance or other weirdo routing stuff doesnt show up 
I will feel more confident about doing some big boy stuff.



On 09/17/2015 11:49 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:


You could look at a transition technology to carry the IPv4 over your 
IPv6, or create pseudo connections via MPLS– why not just dual stack 
everything?  It will be a lot easier J


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *David
*Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:25 PM
*To:* Animal Farm 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] ipv6 question

Ok,
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6.
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple 
Backhaul for some great capacity but
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic 
over. Is this a hard thing to accomplish or

are there any issues related to doing so.
I do have my own /32 block if that matters.


--

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-17 Thread Paul Stewart

You could look at a transition technology to carry the IPv4 over your IPv6, or 
create pseudo connections via MPLS– why not just dual stack everything?  It 
will be a lot easier :)

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

Ok, 
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6. 
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple Backhaul for 
some great capacity but
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic over. Is this 
a hard thing to accomplish or 
are there any issues related to doing so.
I do have my own /32 block if that matters.

--

Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

2015-09-17 Thread Paul Stewart

Original poster didn’t say he was running out of IPv4 :)

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:16 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

If you can't get more IPv4, dual stacking isn't really an option.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

 <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>  
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>  
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> 

Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com

 <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>  
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> 

  _  

From: "Paul Stewart" <p...@paulstewart.org <mailto:p...@paulstewart.org> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 11:49:14 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

You could look at a transition technology to carry the IPv4 over your IPv6, or 
create pseudo connections via MPLS– why not just dual stack everything?  It 
will be a lot easier :)

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Animal Farm <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: [AFMUG] ipv6 question

Ok, 
Anyone doing any ipv6 stacking yet?
I have a question on doing some routing ipv4 over ipv6. 
I have a couple new sites going in and they will have multiple Backhaul for 
some great capacity but
I want to use 1pv6 between the gateways to route the ipv4 traffic over. Is this 
a hard thing to accomplish or 
are there any issues related to doing so.
I do have my own /32 block if that matters.

--

65 matches

Mail list logo