Re: VPLS Experience
On 10/12/05, Mohacsi Janos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, danazster wrote: I keep hearing that VPLS is a Good Thing. It would be if it would be supported and would be compatible. - There are different vendor implementations: LDP oriented or BGP oriented. And there is some movement to be RADIUS oriented also. The RADIUS rfc expired long ago. It looks only like a BGP/LDP discussion now, and I would really like to hear of any impact this has on performance between the two, eg does LDP converge similarly, or paths disappear faster?? Are there any practical differences between the two people have seen? - Some vendors are supporting only in certain HW and line-card combinations. So if you dive into VPLS you might expect lots of debug and blood and sweat and fights with your vendor So what else is new? Sounds like life as we know it. I can list GE/SDH/Sonet combos that don't work on certain line cards and chassis, OS revs. Has been the case for years. Basically I don't want to get into a vendor debate so won't comment on which vendor/s this applies to. I really want to hear about what people are actually doing. Indeed for certain design models it seems to offer some real advantages. There doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level of stability concern that we saw when MPLS first came out - there was a really strong negative about MPLS in 1999 at nanog, behind the scenes anyway. [1] Has anyone got any good deployment or lab test experience they can share? Obviously comment on debug tools, operating models etc would be cool. Basically I am hearing a bit of FUD about jumbo frames, dDOS and multicast, but they look like design problems to me. They started to work on multicast support: VPLS currently does not support efficient multicasting True, the requirements specs are in draft form now, but multicast works better from what I can see in VPLS than it does in MPLS. The theoretical issue is that PEs potentially relay multicast to ports not part of the VPN is this true? Surely you can configure that out with filters on the edge? danazster
IPv6 news
Global Crossing says it has deployed native IPv6. Also, TeliaSonera has picked Lucent to help it prepare for IPv6 service. http://www.techweb.com/wire/172300284 --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 10:33:42AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Global Crossing says it has deployed native IPv6. Also, TeliaSonera has picked Lucent to help it prepare for IPv6 service. http://www.techweb.com/wire/172300284 The full GC PR is at; http://www.globalcrossing.com/xml/news/2005/october/10.xml (Full Disclosure; I'm an SNE with HEAnet). -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPv6 news
Hi all, Take the opportunity to make a non commercial add ;-) Every day there are more and more news related to IPv6. I compile all them at http://www.ipv6tf.org. I also emails every Monday a summary, not sure if it will be good to send it also to this list ? Alternatively, you can register at the site and will get it, together with access to other sections. Regards, Jordi De: Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:33:42 -0400 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: IPv6 news Global Crossing says it has deployed native IPv6. Also, TeliaSonera has picked Lucent to help it prepare for IPv6 service. http://www.techweb.com/wire/172300284 --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: IPv6 news [global crossing]
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 10:33:42AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Global Crossing says it has deployed native IPv6. Also, TeliaSonera has picked Lucent to help it prepare for IPv6 service. http://www.techweb.com/wire/172300284 The full GC PR is at; http://www.globalcrossing.com/xml/news/2005/october/10.xml Umm.. IPv6 [...] delivered over our global, MPLS-based backbone. It's not clear whether they're doing 6PE over their v4/MPLS backbone, running v6 in parallel to v4/MPLS or running v6/MPLS (I don't think vendors support this). At least one of these doesn't (IMHO) qualify as native IPv6 [backbone]. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: IPv6 news
good news. but if you look at the recent ipv4 burn rate of ripe and apnic especially, we run out of v4 space in about three years. this should not be surprising, as it matches what frank was saying a decade ago at ale. so having dual stack backbones is very important. but ... four years from now, when marissa can't get v4 space from an rir/lir and so gets v6 space, she will not be able to use 99% of the internet because no significant number of v4 end hosts will have bothered to be v6 enabled because there was no perceived market for it. there will likely be a dangerous period between v4 exhaustion and significant v6 presence where v6-only folk will be in a very bad place. geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will seriously come into play. randy
Re: IPv6 news [global crossing]
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 10:00:23PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 10:33:42AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Global Crossing says it has deployed native IPv6. Also, TeliaSonera has picked Lucent to help it prepare for IPv6 service. http://www.techweb.com/wire/172300284 The full GC PR is at; http://www.globalcrossing.com/xml/news/2005/october/10.xml Umm.. IPv6 [...] delivered over our global, MPLS-based backbone. It's not clear whether they're doing 6PE over their v4/MPLS backbone, running v6 in parallel to v4/MPLS or running v6/MPLS (I don't think vendors support this). At least one of these doesn't (IMHO) qualify as native IPv6 [backbone]. They are delivering native v6 sessions (both customer handoff and backbone links) via their Juniper core. I don't know what they're doing with the GSRs, or even how many of them they have left, but I di know that all of the Juniper-based v6 is native. The MPLS-based backbone stuff is just standard marketing fluff. -- 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 news
On 10/12/05 3:13 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will seriously come into play. Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes. Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG? This could extend the lifetime of the IPv4 space significantly by promoting efficient use through economic incentives, provide positive economic incentives to move to v6 when needed, and eliminate the grey market. Proper controls could be put into place to prevent de-aggregation through utilization of the RIRs as clearing houses. randy
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Randy Bush wrote: if you look at the recent ipv4 burn rate of ripe and apnic especially, we run out of v4 space in about three years. this should not be surprising, as it matches what frank was saying a decade ago at ale. so having dual stack backbones is very important. but ... four years from now, when marissa can't get v4 space from an rir/lir and so gets v6 space, she will not be able to use 99% of the internet because no significant number of v4 end hosts will have bothered to be v6 enabled because there was no perceived market for it. I think more likely is the scenario where Marissa would get NATed IPv4 address (NAT server at the ISP end) and one or more direct IPv6 addresses. The question would then be if Marissa is likely to use the kind of applications where the direct address would become very important to her, but so far from what I know of DSL users, most are just fine behind their home NAT firewalls and only few need direct addresses. But of those few many are those doing P2P sharing especially with BitTorent and this application requires open port on the user end, so in fact P2P and BT may prove to be the cornerstone to getting wider use of IPv6 after we ran out of v4 space... -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Daniel Golding wrote: On 10/12/05 3:13 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will seriously come into play. Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes. Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG? I, for one, would be very interesting in such a system. Distribution of commodities is almost universally done best by capital markets. Unfortunately I won't be at the next NANOG. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:20:31PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote: On 10/12/05 3:13 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will seriously come into play. Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes. Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG? This could extend the lifetime of the IPv4 space significantly by promoting efficient use through economic incentives, provide positive economic incentives to move to v6 when needed, and eliminate the grey market. Proper controls could be put into place to prevent de-aggregation through utilization of the RIRs as clearing houses. First of all, I'm still waiting to be convinced that there is actually an IP shortage at all. From the latest routing table analysis dump to nanog: Percentage of available address space announced: 38.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 58.1 Percentage of available address space allocated: 66.4 From where I sit, the perceived shortage is due to non-existant reclamation of unused resources, and financial incentives to create an artificial shortage. As much as I like to see capitalism solve problems, I don't think that opening up a market in selling legacy allocations is going to make things better. It is one thing to have a legacy allocation sitting around just incase, when the only value is reduced annoyance if you ever need to get more IP space in the future. It is another thing to have the allocation actually be worth something monitarily, and potentially worth a big something if you can manage to hold onto it until there is a REAL shortage (maybe even one that a legacy allocation owner can help create if they have any policy control, wink wink nudge nudge). Capitalism can only sort things out when there is a truely open market, which I don't think describes this situation at all. All I see is that in 3-4 years we will actually have to engage our collective brains again and start getting new IP allocations from a different source. It's not an exhaustion of IPv4 at all, it is just a next step in the evolution of the Internet. Call it recycling if you will. Investing a little bit of time and effort into figuring out the reclamation process now would save us a lot of grief a few years down the road. Why don't we start by going after the low hanging fruit, and pressure some non-corporate entities like the US government to return some of its legacy unused /8 allocations. I'm certain that someone with some historical BGP data could put together an analysis of who has not used their IP allocations at ALL within the last few years, still more low hanging fruit which we can take care of now. Of course, the last time I mentioned an unused /8 which should have been returned years ago on this list, the party in question started announcing it in BGP the next day. -- 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 news
ras, all On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 04:38:53PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: of its legacy unused /8 allocations. I'm certain that someone with some historical BGP data could put together an analysis of who has not used their IP allocations at ALL within the last few years, still more low hanging fruit which we can take care of now. Of course, the last time I mentioned an unused /8 which should have been returned years ago on this list, the party in question started announcing it in BGP the next day. the problem here is this: there is no guarantee that prefixes that are never seen in global tables are not used and deployed. for example, the US DoD has quite a lot of address space (pre-rfc-1918) deployed onto the SIPRNet, i believe. this is not routed to the public internet, but is in use. an argument could be made that one could ignore that space, since it is never intended to route publicly, but intentions change and address/prefix conflicts are bad. by saying this i don't intend to disagree with the general premise: there are tons of genuinely unused prefixes out there. the point is just that i doubt that there is an automated way to determine exactly which ones they are. -- _ todd underwood director of operations security renesys - interdomain intelligence [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.renesys.com
Re: IPv6 news
by saying this i don't intend to disagree with the general premise: there are tons of genuinely unused prefixes out there. the point is just that i doubt that there is an automated way to determine exactly which ones they are. depends on what you mean by automated. geoff's point, among other things, is that we will see social automation in action when the rirs/lirs can no longer allocate from an exhausted iana v4 pool. also to be noted is that rir statistics on who has what space are not in the best of shape, ripe's being particularly obfuscated. randy
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:13:12AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: also to be noted is that rir statistics on who has what space are not in the best of shape, ripe's being particularly obfuscated. *raising an eyebrow* Would you care to elaborate on that? Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:16:03 +0200, Daniel Roesen said: On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:13:12AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: also to be noted is that rir statistics on who has what space are not in the best of shape, ripe's being particularly obfuscated. *raising an eyebrow* Would you care to elaborate on that? Just guessing, but I think Randy is saying that not everybody is totally up-to-date on making sure all the SWIP data is correct pgplEcbp5s9fr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 news
* Daniel Roesen: On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:13:12AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: also to be noted is that rir statistics on who has what space are not in the best of shape, ripe's being particularly obfuscated. *raising an eyebrow* Would you care to elaborate on that? AFAIK, the status of EARLY-REGISTRATION space is still somewhat murky (my favorite topic 8-).
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: addresses. But of those few many are those doing P2P sharing especially with BitTorent and this application requires open port on the user end, so in fact P2P and BT may prove to be the cornerstone to getting wider use of IPv6 after we ran out of v4 space... Both BT and other P2P protocols are perfectly happy behind NAT. There are a few that seem to prefer that they have a non-natted address, or use some port forwarding. Those applications will just need to be fixed if it becomes a common practive of handing out NAT addresses to customers. I think the bigger problem would be that of a larger company running out of RFC 1918 space, for various reasons. -Sean
whois.register.com - exceeded maximum number of queries?
Any reason why the whois.register.com would say You have exceeded your maximum number of queries.. Tried it from 3 differnet boxes that have 3 differnent public ip address. Tried the web gui too and I get the same lookup error. This looks specific to whois.register.com. Is anyone else seeing the same thing Thanks Erik [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]#dig taylormaderealtor.com [Querying whois.internic.net] [Redirected to whois.register.com] [Querying whois.register.com] [whois.register.com] The data in Register.com's WHOIS database is provided to you by Register.com for information purposes only, that is, to assist you in obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration record. Register.com makes this information available as is, and does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic mail, or by telephone; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Register.com (or its systems). The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Register.com. Register.com reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by these terms. You have exceeded your maximum number of queries. Register your domain name at http://www.register.com
RE: whois.register.com - exceeded maximum number of queries?
Noop, Still broke if i specify the whois.register.com as the host. Thanks Erik [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]#whois -h whois.register.com taylormaderealtor.com [Querying whois.register.com] [whois.register.com] The data in Register.com's WHOIS database is provided to you by Register.com for information purposes only, that is, to assist you in obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration record. Register.com makes this information available as is, and does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic mail, or by telephone; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Register.com (or its systems). The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Register.com. Register.com reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by these terms. You have exceeded your maximum number of queries. Register your domain name at http://www.register.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Erik Sundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Engineer Apps Communications 10470 West 164th Place Orland Park, IL 60467 http://www.appscorp.net Phone: 708.403.9200 x228 Fax: 708.873.1310 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -Original Message- From: Rus Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:15 PM To: Erik Sundberg Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: whois.register.com - exceeded maximum number of queries? Any reason why the whois.register.com would say You have exceeded your maximum number of queries.. Tried it from 3 differnet boxes that have 3 differnent public ip address. Tried the web gui too and I get the same lookup error. This looks specific to whois.register.com. Is anyone else seeing the same thing Thanks Erik [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]#dig taylormaderealtor.com [Querying whois.internic.net] [Redirected to whois.register.com] [Querying whois.register.com] [whois.register.com] I'm seeing the same. All I can think of is the whois.register.com is counting the referreals from whois.internic.net and not the end user. You could try quering whois.register.com directly Rus -- e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : t: 01635 281120 | google: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Admin work from £15/hour or $25/hour http://www.a2b2.com - UK and US Dedicated and Virtual servers http://www.instantblog.net - Does exactly what it says on the name
Re: whois.register.com - exceeded maximum number of queries?
Erik Sundberg wrote: Any reason why the whois.register.com would say You have exceeded your maximum number of queries.. Tried it from 3 differnet boxes that have 3 differnent public ip address. Tried the web gui too and I get the same lookup error. This looks specific to whois.register.com. Is anyone else seeing the same thing I, being a bit larger than the average customer of Register.com, normally see the same thing if I setup a script to pull current whois data for all the domains I have registered (most on behalf of others). However I just confirmed that I get the same response from multiple locations, so it does look like whois.register.com is having some issues. You have exceeded your maximum number of queries. -Jim P.
Re: IPv6 news
I don't think so ... I recall Geoff Huston in the last APNIC indicated that this kind of actions are only going to provide a few additional time. I think the BoF should be more in the direction of why not doing already IPv6 (from the perspective of the ISPs) ?. Delaying the inevitable don't seems the best approach to me, instead, preparing everything ahead of time, reduce the cost, which in any case is not significant. Regards, Jordi De: Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:20:31 -0400 Para: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Conversación: IPv6 news Asunto: Re: IPv6 news On 10/12/05 3:13 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will seriously come into play. Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes. Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG? This could extend the lifetime of the IPv4 space significantly by promoting efficient use through economic incentives, provide positive economic incentives to move to v6 when needed, and eliminate the grey market. Proper controls could be put into place to prevent de-aggregation through utilization of the RIRs as clearing houses. randy The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: IPv6 news
As I know, BT and P2P (some apps), already are using IPv6 ;-) And in 6-12 months the new Vista will start replacing XP, with IPv6 enabled by default. If you observe what is happening with XP and IPv6 NOT enabled by default, you may guess what will happen and how many apps. developers will take it seriously. Regards, Jordi De: Sean Figgins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:56:05 -0600 (MDT) Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: IPv6 news On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: addresses. But of those few many are those doing P2P sharing especially with BitTorent and this application requires open port on the user end, so in fact P2P and BT may prove to be the cornerstone to getting wider use of IPv6 after we ran out of v4 space... Both BT and other P2P protocols are perfectly happy behind NAT. There are a few that seem to prefer that they have a non-natted address, or use some port forwarding. Those applications will just need to be fixed if it becomes a common practive of handing out NAT addresses to customers. I think the bigger problem would be that of a larger company running out of RFC 1918 space, for various reasons. -Sean The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: IPv6 news
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:41:26AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: As I know, BT and P2P (some apps), already are using IPv6 ;-) I know of no official BitTorrent supporting IPv6... unfortunately. There were patches floating around, but to my understanding incompatible, and problems with BT servers. Otherwise I'd run an IPv6-only tracker for popular freely distributable software myself. :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: IPv6 news
I am told that some of the access providers are starting to deploy in the US, or at least that's what they tell us. Macs and Linux come with v6 enabled, and Longhorn will as well. So with any luck we will squeak through this one. On Oct 12, 2005, at 12:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote: four years from now, when marissa can't get v4 space from an rir/lir and so gets v6 space, she will not be able to use 99% of the internet because no significant number of v4 end hosts will have bothered to be v6 enabled because there was no perceived market for it.
Re: IPv6 news
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: As I know, BT and P2P (some apps), already are using IPv6 ;-) show flow logs please. And in 6-12 months the new Vista will start replacing XP, with IPv6 enabled by default. If you observe what is happening with XP and IPv6 NOT enabled by default, you may guess what will happen and how many apps. developers will take it seriously. Regards, Jordi De: Sean Figgins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:56:05 -0600 (MDT) Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: IPv6 news On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: addresses. But of those few many are those doing P2P sharing especially with BitTorent and this application requires open port on the user end, so in fact P2P and BT may prove to be the cornerstone to getting wider use of IPv6 after we ran out of v4 space... Both BT and other P2P protocols are perfectly happy behind NAT. There are a few that seem to prefer that they have a non-natted address, or use some port forwarding. Those applications will just need to be fixed if it becomes a common practive of handing out NAT addresses to customers. I think the bigger problem would be that of a larger company running out of RFC 1918 space, for various reasons. -Sean The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Re: IPv6 news
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: As I know, BT and P2P (some apps), already are using IPv6 ;-) show flow logs please. jordie's a nice guy, but he shows marketing literature only randy
Re: IPv6 news
On Oct 12, 2005, at 8:00 PM, Randy Bush wrote: but, if you read my message, the point is that all the major hosted services will not be dual stack. half of them can't even provide well-deployed ipv4 service; try united.com. That is not entirely the fault of the hosting companies.. Note that verio, he.net, towardex, and many other progressive hosting companies have been dual stack for a long time. Perhaps the services that are not able to do dual stack will vote with their wallets and either move to a company who can help them with this or at least buy better engineers. Something has to sort of make them do it though, I can't see united.com just coming up with this idea on their own. -Scott
Re: IPv6 news
but, if you read my message, the point is that all the major hosted services will not be dual stack. half of them can't even provide well-deployed ipv4 service; try united.com. That is not entirely the fault of the hosting companies.. Note that verio, he.net, towardex, and many other progressive hosting companies have been dual stack for a long time. Perhaps the services that are not able to do dual stack will vote with their wallets and either move to a company who can help them with this or at least buy better engineers. Something has to sort of make them do it though, I can't see united.com just coming up with this idea on their own. my point is that they have no incentive to do so. there are no significant v6 customers, and will likely not be until after we have blown through v4 space. this is what i mean by the bad gap. and don't you just love the suggestions of natting v6? randy
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Sean Figgins wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: addresses. But of those few many are those doing P2P sharing especially with BitTorent and this application requires open port on the user end, so in fact P2P and BT may prove to be the cornerstone to getting wider use of IPv6 after we ran out of v4 space... Both BT and other P2P protocols are perfectly happy behind NAT. There are a few that seem to prefer that they have a non-natted address, or use some port forwarding. P2P protocols will work behind NAT only for clients. But if you want to have distributed indexes and distributed content servers (which is what P2P aims at) you need to have those who provide content to have open ports for outsiders to connect to. With NAT this is achieved by opening those specific ports which is fine for when you have home firewall but it would not work if you do not control the NAT box. But its possible to use technique where only index server has to have an open port and than require all content server clients to keep open connection to it and use that to direct them to connect to new clients requesing the data - I'm not sure if BT is doing it right now or not. Those applications will just need to be fixed if it becomes a common practive of handing out NAT addresses to customers. You can fix some applications but not all and when you're faced with situations that you do not even control NAT, then you have a problem. I think the bigger problem would be that of a larger company running out of RFC 1918 space, for various reasons. If its corporate system, they'd also end up using NAT (many already do). The problem would be for webhosts and ASPs who have no choice but to use real ips. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPv6 news
Randy Bush wrote: and don't you just love the suggestions of natting v6? No, but I would like to see consumer routers support rfc3068 (automatic 6to4 tunneling) by default when there is no native IPv6 access service. If we could convince manufacturers that rfc3068 is NAT for ipv6 they'll probably jump right on it :) - Kevin
Re: Fwd: The Root has got an A record
Back in the mid-80s, when some people at Bell Labs were trying to get the rest of us there onto the DNS bandwagon, there were some people who didn't like it. Pike and Weinberger put out deep theoretical papers like The Hideous Name on relative vs. absolute names and the effects of syntax (available at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/doc/85/1-05.ps.gz ), and the Plan 9 naming structure, and Honeyman and Bellovin wrote pathalias to optimize communication paths across bang-space and other namespaces. I mainly grumbled about the unlikelihood of everybody being willing to let some central authority decide whose machines could be named gandalf and mozart given the current anarchic structure of uucp naming, a prediction which proved resoundingly wrong over the next few years as DNS took off like wildfire because it was obviously much more convenient. :-) The main feature of a global hierarchical namespace root is that There Can Be Only One (Highlander, 1986). That doesn't mean that other people can't use the same syntax and software to describe a different namespace that may overlap the Internet's namespace and may resolve to the same addresses in many cases, and over the years there have been occasional alternate-root namespaces grabbing a fraction of a percent of the market, and sometimes they've even been administered well enough that their few users don't all give up immediately. But when they do something wrong with their root, that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the root - it just means that their users may get unpredictable results, which is something they're mostly used to anyway. The DNS namespace is designed that lots of things can be grafted under it, and much of the DNS name resolution software is designed to resolve local as well as global names. So company example.com with globally-named servers like engineering.example.com or london.example.com can have users who refer to those servers as example or london as long as they administer their DNS correctly. And Joe-Bob's Alternate Root Services can have locally-usable names like www.example.fun which are also globally accessible as www.example.fun.joe-bob-alt-root-example.net by people who don't use their name resolvers (again, if they configure everything correctly) - but many of the alternate roots over the years haven't wanted to do that, because it makes it obvious that they're not the real root, just a wannabe. There have been other global namespaces - ICQ was very popular for a while, and it didn't get bothered by the WIPO-and-ICANN crowd because nobody worried too much about trademark violations in a flat numerical namespace that didn't correlate with anything else. On the other hand, the ENUM proposals do have serious issues of namespace policy and centralization-vs-decentralization - should their hierarchical number space be forced to buy E.164 numbers from the Telco Gods? Should anyone who has a PBX be able to manage ENUMs for extensions under it, and should anybody with a phone number be able to define ENUM numbers under it (e.g. 5.4.3.2.1.0.0.0.1.5.5.5.3.2.1.1 to get extension 12345 at +1-123-555-1000, or fax.0.0.0.1.5.5.5.3.2.1.1 to get the fax machine?)
Re: IPv6 news
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: And in 6-12 months the new Vista will start replacing XP, Will start replacing XP on new consumer-grade computers. Corporations will take another 2-4 years to switch, and other people might have upgraded to windows 98 from 3.11 by then. I think that we need to buy as much time as possible for IP, as V6 is going to be extremely painful for the consumer, and thus the consumer is not going to want to adopt it. Our jobs, as network designers and operators will be make it seemless to the consumer without forcing them to shell out a thousand or more dollars on new Windows software, and the hardware that will be required to run it on. If that is devising some sort of NAT for the large percentage of customers that don't care, then that may be the direction we need to take. I have thought for a long time that which v6 is a worthy academic persuit, customers are hardly interested in it when what they have now works. -Sean
Bittorrent on v6 [Re: IPv6 news]
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: As I know, BT and P2P (some apps), already are using IPv6 ;-) show flow logs please. It's not a flow log, but.. Observations of IPv6 Traffic on a 6to4 Relay (in ACM SIGCOMM CCR Internet Vital Signs special issue, January 2005), http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/724626.html .. (section 4.4) shows that a small number of hosts (like 7-8 or so) in April 2004 used BT through our 6to4 relay. The use may or may not have gone up since, this mainly depends on whether v6 support has been included in BT. My (unverified) recollection is that BT supports v6 off-the-box in most linux distros, but I may be wrong. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: I think the bigger problem would be that of a larger company running out of RFC 1918 space, for various reasons. If its corporate system, they'd also end up using NAT (many already do). The problem would be for webhosts and ASPs who have no choice but to use real ips. Uh... No, I think you misunderstood. Not all 1918 space is destined to hit the Internet through NAT. Much of it's use is for devices that never, ever hit the Internet. Take, for example, STBs, modems, provisioning servers, etc. Those all tend to be customer facing, and not IT or corporate networks. The customers do not see these IPs, but systems do. Now, take a large company, such as some of the largest end-user service providers that provide not only the above, but other services as well. Add in traditional services, and you have a huge drain on 1918 space, fro things that never hit a device outside the company's network. Of course, I can not speak to what MY company does, but I can tell you that it is hard to manage. -Sean
