Re: Anyone using uvlan out there?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Matt Palmer wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:35:26AM +1000, Steven Haigh wrote: Phone: (03) 90001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Gee you Melbournians are advanced... you've already gone to 11 digit phone numbers... grin - Matt ...it seems they are closer to the future ground-breaking 128-bit IP world than the rest. ;-))) ./Carlos
Re: ASN Name of the week
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote: www.1800gotjunk.com. They're all over Canada and the US (at the very least). It's a very successful franchise operation. I don't know why they need an AS, but I can say they did a bang-up job of hauling the detritus out of a condo I used to own after the renter abandoned it. Maybe they'll take away all your unwanted SPAM and DDOS attack traffic. :) Or maybe they are getting large enough that they'll be moving out of their colo centers and into one of their own, multi homed. I just multihomed my house and might apply for an ASN for it... :) (When is ASNV6 coming?) Tuc/TBOH Hi, ASNV6, no clue... but 32-bit ASN are already prepared, at least in the registry world. http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/asn-request.txt - Template: ARIN-ASN-REQUEST-4.0 ** As of July 2006 ** Detailed instructions are located below the template. 01. Org ID: 02. Org Name: 03. AS Name: ** Do you want to specifically request a 4-byte AS number ** instead of a traditional 2-byte AS number? Indicate ** YES or NO. If you are unsure, see detailed instructions ** for an explanation of 2-byte vs. 4-byte AS numbers. 04. 4-byte AS number: (...) Cheers, - Carlos Friac,asSee: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe www.geant2.net Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt - The end is near see http://ipv4.potaroo.net Internet is just routes (217118/774), naming (billions) and... people! Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.
Re: Providers that carry IPv6
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Krichbaum, Eric wrote: I saw this question a while ago but no (maybe one) answers. Who does have IPv6 in production today. Of the fixedorbit.com top ten for example? 701 (MCI) - ? 7018 (ATT) - ? 1239 (Sprint) - ? 174 (Cogent) - No. 3356 (Level3) - ? 209 (Qwest) - No. 3549 (Global Crossing) - ? 4323 (Time Warner Telecom) - ? 6461 (Abovenet) - ? 7132 (SBC) - ? Is there anyone out that would supply an ISP with a tunnel to v6 routes? Eric Krichbaum, PhD Director, Retail Network Engineering Citynet 113 Platinum Drive, Suite B Bridgeport WV 26330 Support: 800-881-2638 Fax: 304-848-5410 www.citynet.net Hi, This might change things a bit. (not immediately, of course...) 5 Telcoms Win GSA Contract http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2007/June/1/87860.aspx WASHINGTON, June 1, 2007 -- ATT, Level 3, MCI, Qwest and Sprint were awarded telecommunications contracts worth up to $20 billion over 10 years by the US General Services Administration (GSA), the agency announced Thursday. Cheers, - Carlos Friac,asSee: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe www.geant2.net Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt - The end is near see http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4 Internet is just routes (217118/774), naming (billions) and... people! Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.
(very few) AAAA websites, was: Re: DHCPv6, was: Re: IPv6 Finally gets off the ground
Hi, On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 17-apr-2007, at 4:12, Stephen Sprunk wrote: I also don't know how they react when you try to contact a site that _does_ have records, since no major content site has them (which is a whole 'nother discussion). Not major content sites, but these are some web sites with records that people may be visiting for other reasons than just IPv6 tourism: That's an interesting concept, IPv6 tourism ;-) www.apnic.net www.arin.net www.lacnic.net www.ripe.net RIRs, frequent IPv6 promoters. they know available IPv4 space is going to end. yes, afrinic is missing.. :-( www.ietf.org www.ams-ix.net internet exchanges. those which see IPv6 as an easy thing :-) some more s to add: czech republic - info.nix.cz has IPv6 address 2001:ae8:4:0:230:48ff:fe42:48c5 ireland - www.inex.ie has IPv6 address 2001:7f8:18:2::4 malta - www.mix.net.mt has IPv6 address 2001:1a70:1:1::32 portugal - www.gigapix.pt has IPv6 address 2001:690:a00:40aa:2c0:9fff:fe20:e261 sweden - www.netnod.se has IPv6 address 2001:698:9:404:202:b3ff:fe89:f49b switzerland - pollux.swissix.net has IPv6 address 2001:7f8:24::7e www.isc.org www.netbsd.org www.hitachi.co.jp this one is very interesting! :-) does anybody know more from Japan, regarding largely known brands? www.surfnet.nl www.janet.ac.uk www.dante.net www.geant.net last two are the same server. from the european NREN folder the following could be added: (some www.NREN.country are aliases...) CZ - www.cesnet.cz has IPv6 address 2001:718:1:101:204:23ff:fe52:221a FR - www.renater.fr has IPv6 address 2001:660:3001:4002::10 GR - www.grnet.gr has IPv6 address 2001:648:2ffc:200::2037 IE - heanet.webhost.heanet.ie has IPv6 address 2001:770:18:2::c101:db4f MT - www.um.edu.mt has IPv6 address 2001:1a70:1:1::40 PT - www.fccn.pt has IPv6 address 2001:690:a00:40aa:2c0:9fff:fe20:e261 SE - www.sunet.se has IPv6 address 2001:6b0:e:1::f:1 CH - aslan.switch.ch has IPv6 address 2001:620:0:14::c NO - uninett.no has IPv6 address 2001:700:0:513::80 HR - www.carnet.hr has IPv6 address 2001:b68:e160:0:20b:dbff:fee6:a4f0 IS - frosti.rhnet.is has IPv6 address 2001:948:10:16::23 Cheers, Carlos
Re: (very few) AAAA websites
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Niels Bakker wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carlos Friacas) [Tue 17 Apr 2007, 10:38 CEST]: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Not major content sites, but these are some web sites with records that people may be visiting for other reasons than just IPv6 tourism: [..] www.ams-ix.net internet exchanges. those which see IPv6 as an easy thing :-) Why would they see that any differently than any ISP? The issues they run into are exactly the same as those on other networks. IOS version dances, DNS has to be updated, the occasional timeouts when e.g. a wireless access point stops forwarding IPv6 ethertype frames, c. -- Niels. -- The Mac doesn't have a one-button mouse, it has a five-button mouse, with four of the buttons on the keyboard. -- Peter da Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, What i meant is that when IXPs/NAPs allow v4 bgp sessions or v6 bgp sessions over their infrastructure they are doing pretty much the same stuff. Lower Layer = No Issue. Even if they're using/providing a route server-based service, enabling IPv6 should be very easy. Of course that when IXPs/NAPs place s and enable services (Web, ...) they run into the same *mostly solvable* problems other people do. :-) Best Regards, - Carlos Friac,asSee: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboawww.geant2.net Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt - The end is near see http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html Internet is just routes (216399/730), naming (billions) and... people! Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.
Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Joe Provo wrote: On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:57:10PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic areas. Or is there some other explanation? Detailed at nanog 31 (among other meetings): http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0405/abarbanel.html 2005 detail from a blogger: http://bayosphere.com/node/879 2006 detail from another blogger: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/04/tracking_plane_flight_on_inter.shtml -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE Yep. And they also presented it on this side of the Atlantic, back in May'2004: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-routing-global.pdf Best Regards, ./Carlos Skype: cf916183694 -- Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (196663/675), naming (millions) and... people!
Re: traffic from DE to DE goes via NL-UK-US-FR
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Andrius Kazimieras Kasparavi?ius wrote: Just wondering if it is normal for traffic from DE to DE to flow through NL-UK-US-FR and so increase delay nearly 100 times? Traceroute here: http://pastebin.ca/115200 and there is only 4 AS, so ASPATH does not help a lot in finding such links with a horrifying optimisation. I believe there is much worse links, any software to detect this? Something like scanning one ip from larger IP blocks with icmp and comparing geotrajectoyi via geoip? You should direct the question to whereever you are a customer. These things usually happen when one party doesn't want to peer with another party and the one that wants to peer, will route traffic really far away to make sure that both parties are paying for the traffic, thus increasing the motivation for the other party to change their mind regarding peering. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...unfortunate series of circumstances... ;-) but the bottom line is that the economics of it (almost always) comes on top of customer's benefit. i have the same problem in my city, to reach some (few) networks, since some years now. ...but i guess in central europe (or in the central european internet - london/amsterdam/frankfurt/paris) you don't see that often... ;-) best regards, ./Carlos Skype: cf916183694 -- Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (191157/571), naming (millions) and... people!
Re: IPv6 Transit?
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Mat, I'm not sure what providers are already present in your area, may be will be easier if you mention some of the choices you have. In general I will say that you can rely on companies such as Global Crossing, Teleglobe, NTT/Verio, Tiscali, Sparkle/Seabone, TIWS, OpenTransit, CableWireless, etc. (they are not in any specific preference order, just as they come to my mind right now). But there are many more. I'm actually trying to have a web page with a listing of all the IPv6-ready Telcos and ISPs in the world. Some information is available at http://www.ipv6tf.org/guide/organizations/services/isp.php and for IXs at http://www.ipv6tf.org/guide/organizations/services/ix.php, but not updated at the time being. Hi All, Frequently updated source for the IXs bit... https://www.euro-ix.net/isp/choosing/list Some IXs have member lists with an IPv6 column :-) Also on https://www.euro-ix.net/isp/choosing/search/matrix.php ...there is a Number of IPv6 customers column that some may find interesting! ;-) IMHO, local peerings (through IXs) are an important part when trying to setup an IPv6 service. But without the transit part solved, perhaps the best way is to wait (i'm not really a tunnel fan...). The real way forward is to ask(pay) for IPv6 to upstream providers (when your customers start to ask/demand for it). Best Regards, ./Carlos -- Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (175261/555), naming (millions) and... people!
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
Hi, On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Todd Underwood wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 06:16:37PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: On Jun 30, 2005, at 5:37 PM, Todd Underwood wrote: where is the service that is available only on IPv6? i can't seem to find it. You might ask yourself whether the Kame Turtle is dancing at http://www.kame.net/. This is a service that is *different* (returns a different web page) depending on whether you access it using IPv6 or IPv4. heh. i guess i'll have to live without the dancing turtle, and so will all the other Internet users. i wonder what other useful content is not available on the real Internet and only available via ipv6. i the real internet is v4 and v6. the v6 subset is atm a very small one, but there are no doubts about its existence. Some ASes are starting to be dual-stacked, some others are still v4-only. keep asking this question and keep getting non-answers like this. the idea is not to have contents that are unavailable through ipv4. IPv6 is simply a network layer. the rest of fred's comment stands with useful information but i'm still looking for the tipping point where people migrate, en-masse, away from the Internet to this new, incompatible network. that's not really the idea. the idea is to build a dual-stack global internet (which in its v6 part will be a more scalable and extendable one). imho, flag days are generally a bad idea... Regards, ./Carlos -- Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!
Re: Moscow: global power outage
Something went really, really wrong :-( http://www.msk-ix.ru/rus/tech/stat.shtml ./Carlos --http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!
Re: again: how to get an IP from EP.net
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Fredy Kuenzler wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the paix engineering team does the assignments for PAIX exchanges. we (EP) just shunt the request to them. [EMAIL PROTECTED] should respond to the requestor with the address assigned. Ok, little mis-understanding. The PAIX form asks for the ip address, there is no mark that the ip should be issued by the exchange. Maybe you could either 'cc the requestor or make a note at the form. Thanks anyway. wrt IPv6... why not? flamewar-protection another thing the world does not need /flamewar-protection SCNR F. Hi, Perhaps you tags are not working 100% properly... ;-) Why do YOU think the world doesnt need IPv6? Because atm YOU can get IPv4 addresses in a cheap and easy way? Because you perceive NAT as the ultimate technology, that solves all YOUR problems? Other? Regards, ./Carlos --http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!
Re: IPv6 support for com/net zones on October 19, 2004
From AS1930 (Portugal, Europe): [it works...] ;; Query time: 544 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:503:231d::2:30#53(2001:503:231d::2:30) ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:11:40 2004 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 504 ;; Query time: 547 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:503:a83e::2:30#53(2001:503:a83e::2:30) ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:43:23 2004 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 504 ./Carlos --http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (140068/465), naming (millions) and... people!
Re: IPv6 support for com/net zones on October 19, 2004
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Niels Bakker wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carlos Friacas) [Thu 28 Oct 2004, 13:38 CEST]: From AS1930 (Portugal, Europe): [it works...] ;; Query time: 544 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:503:231d::2:30#53(2001:503:231d::2:30) ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:11:40 2004 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 504 ;; Query time: 547 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:503:a83e::2:30#53(2001:503:a83e::2:30) ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:43:23 2004 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 504 Query times using IPv6 seem significantly higher than those for IPv4 to both a and b.gtld-servers.net, but as far as you can trust traceroute it doesn't seem as if the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for each host end up in wildly different places... Anyone else care to comment? The hop count is suspiciously lower for IPv6 than for IPv4, and has twice the latency (coming from Europe too). But again, this is traceroute `wisdom'. Yes. Definitely there are tunnels in the path... For now, i dont care about query times, i only wish to guarantee reachability. The next phase will only happen when *more* tier-1s start to sell ipv6 transit on the same basis they sell ipv4 transit for years. -- Niels. -- Today's subliminal thought is: ./Carlos --http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (140068/465), naming (millions) and... people!
Re: Ship seized for cutting Sri Lanka's internet link
*only* internet connection? if yes, here we see once again the benefits of having a monopoly in the telecom industry. and a bad one it seems... even if the incumbent is the only way out of the island, it would seem wise (not cost-driven) to have a second cable at least connecting the island to the world... ;-) On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Sean Donelan wrote: Sri Lanka's high court has ordered the seizure of an Indian cargo vessel which allegedly cut a submarine cable connecting the island's telecommunications subscribers with the rest of the world. The court ordered that the vessel, State of Nagaland, be held at the Colombo port where it berthed on Sunday after accidentally severing the cable known as the SEA-ME-WE-III with its anchor.
Re: More on Sri Lanka fiber outage....
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Bruce Campbell wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tony Li wrote: Did they arrest the crew? They have grounds on negligence charges... The crew of the ship for having dropped anchor presumably in defiance of 'Undersea cable, Do not anchor here' signs, or the telco for having sited a critical communications cable near/beneath a busy port ? --==-- Bruce. ( Of course, I don't know the specifics, but if you have a choice, running your very-special undersea cable beneath a port would seem to be a bad idea ) ...an alternative ISP would have made big bucks during those blockout days using some satellite gear, no? ;-)
Re: (UPDATE) Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
Question: What would be the practical effects of a court decision if a 3rd party ISP: 1) buys NAC; 2) inherit the PA space; 3) and *operating* from abroad (non-US), anounces the same portion of PA space the court said belongs to the customer. On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote: * Alex Yuriev wrote: Judge grants the TRO. Defendant waves arms on nanog-l. Moral - When a legal system is involved, use the legal system, not the nanog-l. The former provides provides ample of opportunities to deal with the issues, while the later only provides ample of opportunities to do hand waving. I would like to make a few comments on this and other posts that have been made in response to my original post last night. First of all, there is no question that there is a contractual dispute between NAC and the Customer. There is a lengthy complaint filed by the Customer against NAC, alleging a variety of things. Next, the more important issue. While there is a dispute between NAC and the Customer, as mentioned above, I am *NOT LOOKING FOR COMMENTS ON THE ACTUAL LAWSUIT* from nanog-l. I am not waving my arms about the lawsuit, as Alex implies above. What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community, strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be able to use IP Space allocated to NAC. In other words, I am asking people to if they agree with my position, lawsuit or not, that non-portable IP's should not be portable between parties, especially by a state superior court ordered TRO. This issue has been misunderstood, in that there is belief by some that the Customer should be allowed some period of grace for renumbering. I want to remind people that this Customer has had ARIN allocations for over 15 months. Also, recall that Customer has terminated service with us, and we would still allow them to be a Customer of ours if they so choose. This fact is undisputed as evidenced by the filing of certain public documents. With the above being said, I solicit comments on the following certification: Those would like to make a certification on behalf of their business: http://www.nac.net/cert.pdf Those would like to make a certification on behalf of themselves: http://www.nac.net/pcert.pdf Forgetting the facts of the case, for the moment, I think we all agree with the terms of this certification. The above does not ask for anyone to form an opinion about the case. It asks Internet Operators, as a community, if portability of non portable space is bad. If you agree, I ask you to execute this certification as an amicus brief, and fax it to us at 973-590-5080. Thank you for your time on this matter, it is truly appreciated. Please do not take the above that I do not appreciate all the commentary. As I say above, my point is that I am not trying to have a trial in a public forum, but, more importantly, I am verifying that our opinion regarding IP portability is one that the community as a whole shares. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- ./Carlos --http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (140068/465), naming (millions) and... people!
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: not the only thing we have to do anyway, there is no demand and therefore no ROI. It is urgent to wait. The nice (but sometimes frustrating) thing about IPv6 is that we can take (in internet time) forever to upgrade. At this point, the most important thing is to avoid building new stuff that will get in the way of IPv6 when the time comes that deploying v6 starts making sense. Unfortunately, few people understand the idea of taking 5 or 10 years to upgrade, they think this means doing nothing for 4,5 or 9,5 years and then frantically start throwing money at the problem. Oh well. Yep. That is the main point for me! The larger the transition phase, the smoother... starting as soon as possible will cause less pain for everybody... From the cost point of view: + IPv6 should be seen as an evolution of current IP version 4. People that understand IP version 4 (network admins) should also learn easily IP version 6. Unfortunately IPv6 is often referred to as a new technology, but in the end... it is not. It is (only?) the plain old IP, with some improvements... + On the vendor front. IPv6 should be seen also as the natural evolution on IP technology. If any vendor wished to keep their share in the IP market, they should be able to support it, without any significant extra cost for customers. However... i dont really think the hardware factor is nowadays a serious problem for people currently building dual-stack networks (yes, in some parts of the world, people are doing it!!!) To conclude, nobody (i think) wishes to end IPv4 addresses anywhere in the years to follow... Regards, ./Carlos -- IPv6 - http://www.ip6.fccn.pt Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt Internet is just routes (135072/470), naming (millions) and... people!
