Re: IPv6
> > Why not use the highest-order 32 bits of an IPv6 address for > interdomain routing... i.e., "overlay" them on IPv4 addresses > and/or a 32-bit ASN? Yes, it smells of classful routing. Call > me shortsighted, but how many billion interdomain routing > policies do we really need? > One word; multihoming. Pete
Re: IPv6
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:37:01AM +, E.B. Dreger wrote: > > SS> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:22:38 -0500 > SS> From: Stephen Sprunk > > > SS> When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I > SS> don't think "not completely functional" is an adequate > SS> description. To me, that falls into the "not supported" > SS> category. > > Okay, I'll make a fool of myself on-list -- certainly not the > first time. ;-) > > Why not use the highest-order 32 bits of an IPv6 address for > interdomain routing... i.e., "overlay" them on IPv4 addresses > and/or a 32-bit ASN? Yes, it smells of classful routing. Call > me shortsighted, but how many billion interdomain routing > policies do we really need? > > Probably OT, but seems semi-fitting for the thread. The whole 64 bits reserved for a link layer address thing seems silly, why don't we just put some payload in there and make the packets a fixed size... :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: IPv6
SS> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:48:18 -0500 SS> From: Stephen Sprunk SS> Most L3 switches shipping today (e.g. the product in question) have SS> particular ethertypes and destination address offsets hardcoded into their SS> ASICs. It's not a matter of supporting 128-bit addresses -- they simply SS> doesn't understand IPv6's header any more than they do DECnet or AppleTalk. Yes... SS> While allocation policies may have an effect on how IPv6 FIBs are most SS> efficiently stored, address length is a fairly small part of the problem ...but there's no sense making the tries more unwieldy than they need to be. SS> when you're talking about redesigning every ASIC to handle both IPv4 and SS> IPv6. Less redesign required if reusing the existing IPv4 lookup. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: IPv6
Thus spake "E.B. Dreger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > SS> When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I > SS> don't think "not completely functional" is an adequate > SS> description. To me, that falls into the "not supported" > SS> category. > > Why not use the highest-order 32 bits of an IPv6 address for > interdomain routing... i.e., "overlay" them on IPv4 addresses > and/or a 32-bit ASN? Yes, it smells of classful routing. Call > me shortsighted, but how many billion interdomain routing > policies do we really need? Most L3 switches shipping today (e.g. the product in question) have particular ethertypes and destination address offsets hardcoded into their ASICs. It's not a matter of supporting 128-bit addresses -- they simply doesn't understand IPv6's header any more than they do DECnet or AppleTalk. While allocation policies may have an effect on how IPv6 FIBs are most efficiently stored, address length is a fairly small part of the problem when you're talking about redesigning every ASIC to handle both IPv4 and IPv6. S
Re: IPv6
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:40:36PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote: > > When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I don't think "not > > completely functional" is an adequate description. To me, that falls into > > the "not supported" category. > > Clearly, you wouldn't deploy this box for a native-IPV6 app. I am guessing > Cisco is betting this box will have an upgrade available or be obsolete by > the time the majority of their customers want to pass 30Mpps IPV6. > > Heck, a PC-IPV6 router will move more than 200Kpps, but I don't want to get > on that horse. Well, i'll try to steer the conversation in a different direction. I think that some of the hardware vendors need to seriously look at their design policies for their new linecards, platforms, processors and continue to leverage their existing software so that we can get the necessary solutions to operate our networks. What am I talking about? Well, we need to insure that not only the platform can forward at linerate with all the necessary features turned on. You need to place rate-limits, acls, ipv4, ipv6, unicast-rpf, load-sharing, mac accounting, received mac address acl logging (at least one "core" vendor seems to be missing this still) and more. The platform needs to boot in ~30-60 seconds. Yeah, NSF/HA will help things, but nobody ever needs to do a cold start because there's never a power outage ... there need to be sufficent processing power that there aren't any problems (or percieved problems - eg: customers actually do expect your routers to respond to icmp promptly otherwise they'll claim packetloss; this isn't the case most of the time, but any percieved problem can possibly cause you to lose customers) handling BGP updates and providing good [interactive] response time. I truly think that in order to provide all the necessary features needed in the core we need the vendors to go through at least 2 more hardware generations to provide the features necessary if they do not make too many mistakes. Otherwise we'll be chasing how to look into the mpls packets to do DoS tracking for years to come. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: IPv6
SS> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:22:38 -0500 SS> From: Stephen Sprunk SS> When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I SS> don't think "not completely functional" is an adequate SS> description. To me, that falls into the "not supported" SS> category. Okay, I'll make a fool of myself on-list -- certainly not the first time. ;-) Why not use the highest-order 32 bits of an IPv6 address for interdomain routing... i.e., "overlay" them on IPv4 addresses and/or a 32-bit ASN? Yes, it smells of classful routing. Call me shortsighted, but how many billion interdomain routing policies do we really need? Probably OT, but seems semi-fitting for the thread. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to be blocked.
RE: IPv6
> > Vendor C's issues with v6 are a problem, but they're > > not the only provider of core or edge gear... > > Also, even though their forwarding mechanisa are not > > completely functional, they do pass packets, so it'll > > work, just not be optimized. > > When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I don't think "not > completely functional" is an adequate description. To me, that falls into > the "not supported" category. Clearly, you wouldn't deploy this box for a native-IPV6 app. I am guessing Cisco is betting this box will have an upgrade available or be obsolete by the time the majority of their customers want to pass 30Mpps IPV6. Heck, a PC-IPV6 router will move more than 200Kpps, but I don't want to get on that horse. Deepak Jain AiNET
Re: IPv6
Thus spake "David Barak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nearly every customer of mine has required IPv6 in > > their RFPs for over a > > year, but not a single one has turned it on even for > > testing. > > Right, but it means that more network providers are > having to offer some type of solution. This will > enable Windows (or whatever) to have it on by default > and actually have it work. We can hope. > Vendor C's issues with v6 are a problem, but they're > not the only provider of core or edge gear... > Also, even though their forwarding mechanisa are not > completely functional, they do pass packets, so it'll > work, just not be optimized. When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I don't think "not completely functional" is an adequate description. To me, that falls into the "not supported" category. S
Re: IPv6
> > Nearly every customer of mine has required IPv6 in > > their RFPs for over a > > year, but not a single one has turned it on even for > > testing. Lets say I have a lab with a few machines and I enable native v6 on my primary v4 network connection. The 300kbps that my lab generates is fine. What do I do if someone DOS's me with v6 packets and my router dies taking out both v4 and v6? The routers we spec can usually handle v4 traffic at levels on par with the link rates so its not as big a deal for v4 DOS traffic (link saturation is more the problem). When the v6 rate is substantially less than the link's bandwidth, I get worried that a low-level DOS will take out our entire network... Eric :)
Re: IPv6
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:56:06PM -0400, Mark Segal wrote: > > > >So, how does IPv6 go from the shores of Japan and the minds of geeks across > America to being the primary protocol > >used on the net? > > Microsoft ships their new OS with IPv6 enabled by default. :) You need a few things to happen: 1) DSL providers need to provide IPv6 2) Cable providers need to provide IPv6 3) Dialup providers need to provide IPv6. Once you get this space working, the rest will come shortly afterwards. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: IPv6
MAI will be offering IPV6 for their web services hosting. - Original Message - From: "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jared Mauch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Irwin Lazar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 14:16 Subject: Re: IPv6 > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:49:26PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:39:48AM -0600, Irwin Lazar wrote: > > > Excuse the off-topic question, but does anyone know if there is some sort of > > > list anywhere of service providers who are running IPv6 in a production capacity, either to tunnel IPv4 or to offer native IPv6 services? I'm not looking for test or research networks but rather a list of IPv6 networks that are actually carrying customer traffic. > > > > > > NTT/Verio has been offering commercial IPv6 services since April 2002 > > I seem to recall. > > > > http://www.v6.ntt.net/globe/index_e.html > > http://www.soi.wide.ad.jp/ipv6_summit/2001/slides/03/2.html > > > > I've gotten postcards from Hurrican Electric about their > > Free IPv6 service as well. I'm sure many other people have gotten > > them.. > > > > I seem to recall that C&W provided native IPv6 for the > > Atlanta IETF. > > I believe GX sells commercial IPv6 at select locations as well. Hurricane > Electric is probably the leader in the market though, as everyone else > seems to still be implementing v6 with dedicated low-end devices and > tunnels. > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) > >
Re: IPv6
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:49:26PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:39:48AM -0600, Irwin Lazar wrote: > > Excuse the off-topic question, but does anyone know if there is some sort of list > > anywhere of service providers who are running IPv6 in a production capacity, > > either to tunnel IPv4 or to offer native IPv6 services? I'm not looking for test > > or research networks but rather a list of IPv6 networks that are actually carrying > > customer traffic. > > > NTT/Verio has been offering commercial IPv6 services since April 2002 > I seem to recall. > > http://www.v6.ntt.net/globe/index_e.html > http://www.soi.wide.ad.jp/ipv6_summit/2001/slides/03/2.html > > I've gotten postcards from Hurrican Electric about their > Free IPv6 service as well. I'm sure many other people have gotten > them.. > > I seem to recall that C&W provided native IPv6 for the > Atlanta IETF. I believe GX sells commercial IPv6 at select locations as well. Hurricane Electric is probably the leader in the market though, as everyone else seems to still be implementing v6 with dedicated low-end devices and tunnels. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: IPv6
> > Unfortunately vendor C still ships nearly all of its L3 switches and core > routers with forwarding engines that don't grok IPv6 packets, even if said > vendor has supported IPv6 in software for several years now. > The inventors of tag-switching^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H MPLS seem to be firm believers in that if they don´t deliver the goods, the world will stand still and wait. Pete
Re: IPv6
On 6/12/2003 at 15:00:17 -0400, Eric Gauthier said: > > > >So, how does IPv6 go from the shores of Japan and the minds of geeks across > > America to being the primary protocol > > >used on the net? > > > > Free gay porn? > > Eric :) And there's the secret. As many governments and universities can demand v6 as you like; the real conversion won't happen until the users need v6 to reach their pornography. -Dave
Re: IPv6
--- Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nearly every customer of mine has required IPv6 in > their RFPs for over a > year, but not a single one has turned it on even for > testing. Right, but it means that more network providers are having to offer some type of solution. This will enable Windows (or whatever) to have it on by default and actually have it work. Vendor C's issues with v6 are a problem, but they're not the only provider of core or edge gear... Also, even though their forwarding mechanisa are not completely functional, they do pass packets, so it'll work, just not be optimized. = David Barak -fully RFC 1925 compliant- __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Re: IPv6
> >So, how does IPv6 go from the shores of Japan and the minds of geeks across > America to being the primary protocol > >used on the net? > Free gay porn? Eric :)
RE: IPv6
> Nearly every customer of mine has required IPv6 in their RFPs for over a > year, but not a single one has turned it on even for testing. Agreed. Similar experience over here. > > Once it's a product, I think you'll see some people > > buying it... > > You mean once Windows has it enabled by default, people will > start using it. > IMHO, the only chance IPv6 has of widespread US deployment is if it can > happen without end users knowing they're using IPv6. Windows customers will not notice it once they can accept DHCP'd IPV6 addresses and their provider does 6to4 mapping and what not. > Unfortunately vendor C still ships nearly all of its L3 switches and core > routers with forwarding engines that don't grok IPv6 packets, even if said > vendor has supported IPv6 in software for several years now. Vendor C wants you to upgrade to new hardware-level IPV6 ASICs once demand is high enough. And then a new + verison once you need wirespeed. :) Deepak Jain AiNET
RE: IPv6
>So, how does IPv6 go from the shores of Japan and the minds of geeks across America to being the primary protocol >used on the net? Microsoft ships their new OS with IPv6 enabled by default. :) Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Network Planning FCI Broadband Tel: 905-284-4070 Fax: 416-987-4701 http://www.fcibroadband.com Futureway Communications Inc. is now FCI Broadband
Re: IPv6
Thus spake "David Barak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think the place you're going to see IPv6 adoption is > government networks - I've seen several RFPs from > various government offices which are requiring some > degree of IPv6 capability. This is going to drive the > various large carriers who have these governments as > customers to implement a generically working IPv6 > solution. Nearly every customer of mine has required IPv6 in their RFPs for over a year, but not a single one has turned it on even for testing. > Once it's a product, I think you'll see some people > buying it... You mean once Windows has it enabled by default, people will start using it. IMHO, the only chance IPv6 has of widespread US deployment is if it can happen without end users knowing they're using IPv6. Unfortunately vendor C still ships nearly all of its L3 switches and core routers with forwarding engines that don't grok IPv6 packets, even if said vendor has supported IPv6 in software for several years now. S
Re: IPv6
> Am I the only one that thinks IPv6 is a minimum of ten years out before > you see actual non-geek demand? Well, this probably doesn't fall completely under the non-geeek category, but larger US Universities are starting to deploy v6 on their campuses as well as using it for native transit over I2. One driver is the research folks (a.k.a geeks). There is, however, another business driver. Those wonderfully huge class B's that we have grandfathered to us for free from so many years ago are starting to fill up with the explosion in devices on campus - all our vending machines, card readers on every door, pervasive wireless, every student with both a laptop and a desktop... Getting a nice, free (from I2) chuck of v6 space and pushing the community to use it is definitely preferable to paying ARIN for another /16 If Universities start offering pervasively, you might see this spur growth in other sectors. Eric :)
Re: IPv6
David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think the place you're going to see IPv6 adoption is government > networks - I've seen several RFPs from various government offices > which are requiring some degree of IPv6 capability. This is going > to drive the various large carriers who have these governments as > customers to implement a generically working IPv6 solution. This is the same phenomenon that drove the explosive adoption rates of the ISO OSI protocol stack and the Ada programming language. Jim Shankland
Re: IPv6
Hi Irwin, On Tue, 10 June 2003 08:39:48 -0600, Irwin Lazar wrote: > Excuse the off-topic question, but does anyone know if > there is some sort of list anywhere of service providers > who are running IPv6 in a production capacity, either to > tunnel IPv4 or to offer native IPv6 services? I'm not > looking for test or research networks but rather a list of > IPv6 networks that are actually carrying customer traffic. funny you're asking today. Some hours ago I was browsing www.sinet.ad.jp and while I did not understand a word but the English! button there was a text saying I was accessing that page with IPv6, and it just worked and v6 was in no way slower at all than IPv4 when I actually compared these. It's nice that it's just working fine your applications are ready for it. That being said, the network I work with has IPv6 customers (natively) and is actually doing transit for some other networks in Europe and also in the US to help IPv6 to spread quicker. It's native IPv6 on all core nodes at the moment and we only have local tunnels in Europe where nothing else would work. Cool thing is 90% of all European exchanges are already offering IPv6 services, and in the US of course Equinix does IPv6 as of late, as does Telehouse and PAIX. So it is easy to get started with IPv6 if you are at one of these exchanges. I'm happy enough more and more IPv6 network get the hang of not simply (re-) announcing the full table but only their own routes, asking their upstream provider to do IPv6 upstream for them. I may not want to receive the full table in Europe by someone who has tunnels on a router where I am native to the US. Regards, Alexander PS: AS-TISCALI-V6PEERS in RIPE, if anyone cares, or route-server.ip6.tiscali.net ;-) -- Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / ako4-ripe IP Engineering, Tiscali International Network Robert-Bosch-Strasse 32, D-63303 Dreieich, Germany Phone +49 6103 916 480, Fax +49 6103 916 464
Re: IPv6
On 6/12/2003 at 13:14:30 -0400, Andy Dills said: > > On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > I honestly see most of the backbone providers offering > > native IPv4 and IPv6 services in the next few years. Contact > > your provider as you can probally get in on any beta service > > offerings they currently have. > > Am I the only one that thinks IPv6 is a minimum of ten years out before > you see actual non-geek demand? I don't know about timeframe, but I certainly don't see it soon. > Is IPv6 better than IPv4? Yes. I'm not sure that is widely agreed on. Specifically, I am not sure there are many features of v6 that are wanted and haven't been ported back to v4. > Enough for it to motivate everybody to switch? Debateable. Some of the new features in ipv6 have already been tried in other protocols... protocols that ipv4 has already replaced in the market. They won't be the adoption drivers people seem to think they are. v4 may not be as efficient as v6, but it is efficient enough, and until it cannot handle the apps the mainstream users need, the mainstream won't use it. Fortunately, unlike VHS vs Betamax, you can quietly include support for both in a single device with no or little excess cost, and, like cassettes vs CDs, you will be able to have one mass market for the good enough right now, and one smaller market for the -philes, and slowly shift from one to the other. First, though, you have to make ipv6 perform. ipv4 has been worked on by some very competent people for a long time; to pull out yet another comparison, like rotary vs piston engines, even if ipv6 is theoretically better than v4, the implementation and support have to catch up before the wide deployment can really get started. -Dave
Re: IPv6
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:14:30PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > I honestly see most of the backbone providers offering > > native IPv4 and IPv6 services in the next few years. Contact > > your provider as you can probally get in on any beta service > > offerings they currently have. > > Am I the only one that thinks IPv6 is a minimum of ten years out before > you see actual non-geek demand? What I continuously remind myself is the transformation of the internet from 10 years ago to now. When you look at what has happened in comparison, I wouldn't rule this out at all. Obviously IPv4 is going to be the primary for internetworks for some time but I do expect traffic levels at the IPv6 exchanges to pick up. Personally, I find some mirrors I connect to have a IPv6 address where they don't rate-limit it, so when the next release of RH/FreeBSD come out, it's quicker to download via IPv6 than IPv4 as there are no contention issues for gaining access to the ftp server. I see people doing IPv6 deployments but not quite as fast as the IPv4 deployment speed of the past 10 years, but with most sites enabled in the next 3-5 years at most. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: IPv6
I think the place you're going to see IPv6 adoption is government networks - I've seen several RFPs from various government offices which are requiring some degree of IPv6 capability. This is going to drive the various large carriers who have these governments as customers to implement a generically working IPv6 solution. Once it's a product, I think you'll see some people buying it... -David Barak --- Andy Dills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, how does IPv6 go from the shores of Japan and > the minds of geeks > across America to being the primary protocol used on > the net? > > Andy = David Barak -fully RFC 1925 compliant- __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
RE: IPv6
> Am I the only one that thinks IPv6 is a minimum of ten years > out before you see actual non-geek demand? I have a feeling that IPv6 will creep in through non-obvious channel, such as Microsoft's threedegrees software. It appears to be targeted at the same teenage market that helped make P2P and IM technology explode. Kris
Re: IPv6
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Jared Mauch wrote: > I honestly see most of the backbone providers offering > native IPv4 and IPv6 services in the next few years. Contact > your provider as you can probally get in on any beta service > offerings they currently have. Am I the only one that thinks IPv6 is a minimum of ten years out before you see actual non-geek demand? Maybe I have my head in the sand, but we have an abundance of available IP space, and people who care encrypt their traffic anyways. Is IPv6 better than IPv4? Yes. Enough for it to motivate everybody to switch? Debateable. I just don't see how the snowball is going to get started. With address-starved nations using IPv6, that only makes for more available IPv4 space and less of a motivation to migrate for the rest of us. And in the US, it's seriously driven by the geek early-adopters. I know that I only tested it out to satisfy the geek in me, not to try to solve any real problem that needs a solution. And when I present the issues to non-geeks, they all suggest, in a round-about-way, every single last one of them, that whatever benefits I'm talking about are insignifanct compared to the fact that they no longer have a nice dotted quad to remember. So, how does IPv6 go from the shores of Japan and the minds of geeks across America to being the primary protocol used on the net? Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
Re: IPv6
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:39:48AM -0600, Irwin Lazar wrote: > Excuse the off-topic question, but does anyone know if there is some sort of list > anywhere of service providers who are running IPv6 in a production capacity, either > to tunnel IPv4 or to offer native IPv6 services? I'm not looking for test or > research networks but rather a list of IPv6 networks that are actually carrying > customer traffic. NTT/Verio has been offering commercial IPv6 services since April 2002 I seem to recall. http://www.v6.ntt.net/globe/index_e.html http://www.soi.wide.ad.jp/ipv6_summit/2001/slides/03/2.html I've gotten postcards from Hurrican Electric about their Free IPv6 service as well. I'm sure many other people have gotten them.. I seem to recall that C&W provided native IPv6 for the Atlanta IETF. I'm seeing more providers looking at offering native IPv6 services with Juniper as well as Cisco routers since they can converge the networks using ISIS. The OSPFv3 support is in varying stages depending on your vendor. I'm seeing more and more ipv6 hits in my web server logs as time goes on (when i put the record in place and my host stack is working ok). They mostly come from Europe and Asia but an increasing amount are coming from locations within the US. I honestly see most of the backbone providers offering native IPv4 and IPv6 services in the next few years. Contact your provider as you can probally get in on any beta service offerings they currently have. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Minimum prefix length?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 07:07:54PM -0500, Ejay Hire wrote: > Interesting. Anyone know when this changed? I had a problem related to this with a > /20 in classic A space about 9 months ago. I'm sure people can go check archives at route-views or others to determine when this happened.. I don't specifically recall. I do believe there are still a few providers that have "stricter" policies than Verio filtering on RIR allocation sizes. I could be wrong. - Jared http://www.nanog.org/filter.html > -Original Message- > From: Jared Mauch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:25 PM > To: Ejay Hire > Cc: Temkin, David; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Minimum prefix length? > > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:58:16PM -0500, Ejay Hire wrote: > > > > This doesn't seem to be much of a problem with prefixes less than or equal to > > /24. Domestically, Verio is the big exception. They seem to filter anything > > longer than a /20. > > Huh? > > http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.html#PeerFilter > > That says /22 > > - jared > > > -- > Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
IPv6
Excuse the off-topic question, but does anyone know if there is some sort of list anywhere of service providers who are running IPv6 in a production capacity, either to tunnel IPv4 or to offer native IPv6 services? I'm not looking for test or research networks but rather a list of IPv6 networks that are actually carrying customer traffic. Thanks, Irwin
RE: Minimum prefix length?
Back on topic... For those who mentioned Verio I found http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.html#PeerFilter which I forgot exists. Looks like they've changed it to a /22 for everything in Class A and B space. IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
RE: Ettiquette and rules regarding Hijacked ASN's or IP space?
> At the moment there is no clear procedure for any ISP to > follow to even > get a best guess as to whether an advertisement should be accepted or > not. What about requiring that a route appear in an RIR database period? Maybe that would be a good start. It's easy enough to do but virtually no one seems to do it. We've seen how lengthy The CIDR Report's list of unregistered (but nonetheless advertised) routes is -- why are these advertisements being accepted? This doesn't directly address hijacking, but it seems to me that there's no reason to spend time looking for old, unused, potentially hijackable address blocks if just about any ISP out there will accept your announcements of blocks that aren't even allocated. (Note: I'm not talking about IANA Reserved space.)
Re: anyone has netrange -> cidr conversion script to share?
Net::CIDR - Manipulate IPv4/IPv6 netblocks in CIDR notation
use Net::CIDR;
use Net::CIDR ':all';
print join("\n",
Net::CIDR::range2cidr("192.68.0.0-192.68.255.255",
"10.0.0.0-10.3.255.255"))
. "\n";
#
# Output from above:
#
# 192.68.0.0/16
# 10.0.0.0/14
---Mike
At 11:12 PM 6/11/2003 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone here has a script (or perl procedure) for converting range
of ips (i.e. 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.2.255) into cidr (i.e. result would be
10.0.0.0/23,10.0.2.0/24 from the example before). If not I'll do it, I'm
just hoping somebody is already done something this for another project...
Reply off the list.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communications,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providing Internet since 1994www.sentex.net
Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike
netrange->cidr script - too many replies... thank you all
I received way too many replies on this request. I really appreciate everybody who did reply, but please no more I found what I'm looking for in duplicates and triplicates For those others also interested here is what I was pointed to (sorted by number of pointers - almost 10 for aggis and 2-5 for others): 1. aggis - http://www.utdallas.edu/~pconnally/aggis 2. Net::CIDR::range2cidr(), Net::CIDR::Lite - http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-IP/ 3. sipcalc - http://www.routemeister.net/ 4. http://perlmonks.thepen.com/79663.html Also several people have sent me their own perl scripts that that can be adapted to do what I wanted as well (if I needed it, which does not seem necessary given number of alternatives). Thanks you for those as well. Nanog community is really very helpfull. Please keep it up! --- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anyone has netrange -> cidr conversion script to share?
Does anyone here has a script (or perl procedure) for converting range of ips (i.e. 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.2.255) into cidr (i.e. result would be 10.0.0.0/23,10.0.2.0/24 from the example before). If not I'll do it, I'm just hoping somebody is already done something this for another project... Reply off the list. -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
