Re: Home CPE choice
On 1 apr 2010, at 02:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 31/03/2010 23:55, Charles N Wyble wrote: What good off the shelf solutions are out there? Should one buy the high end d-link/linksys/netgear products? I've had bad experiences with those (netgear in particular). Some people have said that the Fritz!box is quite good. No idea if it's approved for use in the US. They have a very rich VoIP implementation and are really good for the less technical user. But for more eloborate setups they are a bit rigid, telnet to the box and you void warranty etc. Got a few hundred thousand in the field and most people seem to be happy with them. A limited set of IPv6 features is available in beta for some models, very basic interface to support various flavours of native connectios and tunnels. Small firewall interface to punch some pinholes (bit buggy still, being worked on). Enough for your average connection demands. As far as I know they aren't certified for US. Most of the boxes come with ISDN (the have german origins) and DECT base station, so next to the regular WiFi there is a lot of other stuff that needs changing an certification for the US market. My guess however is that those things are primairly driven by demand and if you order a truckload things can be fixed. At home I run cisco, but I guess that's due to my background. It's stable, flexible and I'm used to the interface. From a consumer perspective I'm really impressed by the latest Draytek Vigor (2130n). Pretty amazing RG which has a rich and easy to use future set and has a full and working IPv6 box on board. Unfortunately this doesn't include a VoIP client or DSL interface, both are being worked on I was told. It's build around a linux stack so everything is there: routing, firewalling. Mostly via the webinterface some only via cli (ssh/telnet). SNMP is included. For the DSL there is a workaround using the Vigor 120 box, which can tie DSL to ethernet and even is able to translate PPPoA into PPPoE. With the latest firmware it can also handle IPv6 on those PPP sessions. And since it's standard PPPoE out of the back it's also an easy fix for other RGs. Tested it yesterday together with an airport express and worked perfectly. Only problem I found was the airport seems to lack IPv6 support on it's PPPoE stack, which I was testing for. Enough for the plugging of the vendors :) Shameless plug for myself: I'm compiling a list of IPv6 ready CPE to be presented at RIPE-60, any hints and tips on what is out there and experiences so far are welcome off list. I'm about to send a simple questionair to known vendors, if you happen to be a CPE manufacturer and want to be included please contact me. Thansk, MarcoH
Re: Home CPE choice
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:04:29 +0100, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 31/03/2010 23:55, Charles N Wyble wrote: What good off the shelf solutions are out there? Should one buy the high end d-link/linksys/netgear products? I've had bad experiences with those (netgear in particular). Some people have said that the Fritz!box is quite good. No idea if it's approved for use in the US. Nick The latest Fritz!Box is delivered with firmware that supports IPv6 (native, SixXS and 6to4 tunnels). They can do VoIP, too, and even include a built-in phone answering machine forwarding messages through email. There are official IPv6-enabled firmwares available for several models. They are not cheap but the quality is there. The manufacturer has been very responsive to advanced users expectations. If, for whatever reason the ADSL/VDSL modem part does not work well with your ISP, it can be used as a router only, with whatever cheapo modem that works in your area. http://www.avm.de/en/ Patrick Vande Walle -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu
Re: Finding content in your job title
I remember in the ol'days when everybody was fighting to have the postmaster title ... It was often associated with the possession of the root password, you had to feel the power !!! Cheers Jorge
Re: Home CPE choice
Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com writes: Should one get a real cisco router? The 877 or something? 871 works very well here. You may find on heap on eBay. But *don't* get an 861. Last time i checked there was no IOS with IPv6 support for this model. My current home router is a cisco 1841. I keep my 6mbps DSL line pretty much saturated all the time. Often times my wife will be watching Hulu in the living room, I'll be streaming music and running torrents (granted I have tuned my Azures client fairly well) all at the same time and it's a good experience. If it's working stick to it. ;-) Jens -- - | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany| +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@guug.de | --- | -
Re: Home CPE choice
Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com writes: Have you tried pfsense, or do you find the built in functionality/configuration system to be sufficient? AFAIK IPv6 is not supported via the GUI, but everything else is okay. Jens -- - | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany| +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@guug.de | --- | -
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On 31/03/10 23:18 -0400, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: Dan White wrote: From a content perspective, you may be right. Those with a quickly dwindling supply of v4 addresses will most likely use what they have left for business customers, and for content. However, there will be a time when a significant number of customers will not be able to access your content. ^^ Uncertainty . What percentage of sales are you willing to eat? ^^ Fear . Are you willing to gamble your business on your expectations? Business models will develop that will take advantage of global addressing to end devices. The Next Big (Nth) Thing will. Do you feel that you have a perfect Crystal Ball, or do you want to start hedging your bets now? ^^ Doubt. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ And on that note, I enclose the following, which was rejected by the RFC Editor, but seems relevant to this discussion, so here's the draft. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. Network Working Group Joe Greco Request for Comments: []sol.net Network Services Category: Experimental April 1, 2010 Expires March 2011 IPv4 Future Allocation Is Limited Unless Registries Expand Status of this Memo Distribution of this memo is unlimited. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as work in progress. The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract The momentum of the currently deployed IPv4 network has resulted in a slower transition to IPv6 than expected, and IPv4 address reserves may soon be exhausted. This memo defines an additional class of IPv4 space which may be deployed as an interim solution. Greco, Joe Expires March 2011 FORMFEED[Page 1] Internet Draft IPv4 Class F Space April 1, 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Classful Addressing .2 2.1. Expansion via Classful Addressing ..3 2.2. Impact on existing infrastructure ..3 2.3. Negative aspects to extending IPv4 lifetime 4 2.4. Positive aspects to extending IPv4 lifetime 4 2.5. Adjusted estimated IPv4 depletion date .4 2.6. Impact on IPv6 adoption 4 3. Security Considerations .5 4. IANA Considerations .5 5. References ..5 5.1. Informative References .5 5.2. Acknowledgements ...5 1. Introduction The current Internet addressing scheme has been reasonably successful at providing an Internet capable of providing network services to users. However, because of massive growth and the increasing number of networks being connected to the Internet, an ongoing shortage of network numbers has brought us close to the point where assignable IPv4 prefixes are exhausted. To combat this, the Internet is currently undergoing a major transition to IPv6. Despite the looming exhaustion of IPv4 space [IPv4_Report], IPv6 adoption rates have been slower than expected. Policy suggestions to extend the availability of IPv4 have ranged from reclamation of unused legacy IPv4 delegations [ICANN_feb08] to the use of carrier-grade NAT to place most customers of service providers on RFC1918 space [Nishitani]. We propose a different solution to the problem. RFC 1365 [RFC1365] and RFC 1375 [RFC1375] suggest some
Juniper Denial of Service vulnerabilities
A Dual-Homed Swapfile Overflow Error can occur under controlled conditions causing multiple Denials of Service on Juniper SRX platforms. http://www.disgraced.org/junipervulns.html -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently. - Warren Buffett 227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA 4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x5CCD6B5E
Re: Finding content in your job title
Did that mean that your job was to ensure that the guillotine was sharpened and engineered securely? -- -- Brian Raaen Network Engineer bra...@zcorum.com On Wednesday 31 March 2010, Jens Link wrote: Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca writes: For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth. Hey, network engineer is good. Some time back someone gave me the title senior executioner security engineer. They even send a document to a customer with this title. Jens -- - | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany| +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@guug.de | --- | -
RE: Home CPE choice
If you like open source routing platforms but want support and (possibly) a HW appliance (you can also just use their software), you may also want to take a look at Vyatta (http://www.vyatta.com/). They make a I haven't personally worked with the gear yet but I've heard some good things. -Scott -Original Message- From: Charles N Wyble [mailto:char...@knownelement.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:46 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Home CPE choice On 03/31/2010 04:07 PM, William Warren wrote: I run Astaro on a p-4 celey i had lying around. Get far more than any little router you'll see..can't beat the price. Astaro looks cool. I hadn't heard of it before. Thanks for sharing.
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
I don't have any reference to support the idea that 100% of regular users want IPv6, I don't think they know or care to know what IPv6 is or what's the difference with IPv4 which most probably they don't know either besides few configuration screens of the devices they use. What for sure they eally want is high speed, reliable and omnipresent connectivity. I regularly ask about IPv6 when I find new information about a Home CPE class router because I'm engaged in some activities related to connecting things (which I don't intend to mean that people are also things), particularly in residential applications. Think about a combination of wired/wireless sensors and devices, energy management, security, home automation stuff. On the wireless front we are making some progress (probably too slow) on the IETF with 6LoWPAN, many other applications are gradually switching to ethernet or at least using lite TCP/IP. Then my interest is to have better knowledge about what on that class of equipment is on the pipeline, to deal with questions such as, do the particular application I mentioned above needs to be developed totally with native IPv6 ?, or IPv4 ?, or combination of both ?, do we require translation/tunneling/etc ?, or can defer that function to another device that will take care to send and get the packets from/to the net ? That sort of thing. Just to play with, I purchased a soekris net5501 board (very nice board for that price) and planning to start playing with it using FreeBSD. I took a look at the RouterBoard but the firmware license is too restrictive and there is no much hacking (well there is always a way to hack) you can do, but they are dirty cheap. Cheers Jorge
Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On Mar 31, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Michael Holstein wrote: I checked the documentation for two models (Linux model and highest-end non-Linux model), and there's no mention of IPv6. If this is a strictly hardware discussion, v6 works on a variety of models, albeit not with stock firmware. To wit : http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/IPv6 This suggests that Cisco (et.al.) can release an official firmware image to support v6 on existing devices whenever they're sufficiently motivated to do so. I'd wager the only reason it hasn't been made GA is to limit the number of pass-the-buck support calls that start at $isp and get bounced back saying we don't support that yet, call whoever makes your router. Not necessarily. dd-wrt lacks the memory expense of the silly web interface that Linksys is oh so fond of implementing in their consumer grade boxen. I suspect that adding features to the Linksys code may be a bit tighter on image and data space than dd-wrt's stripped down efficiency. Owen
Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On Mar 31, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Michael Holstein wrote: I checked the documentation for two models (Linux model and highest-end non-Linux model), and there's no mention of IPv6. If this is a strictly hardware discussion, v6 works on a variety of models, albeit not with stock firmware. To wit : http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/IPv6 This suggests that Cisco (et.al.) can release an official firmware image to support v6 on existing devices whenever they're sufficiently motivated to do so. I'd wager the only reason it hasn't been made GA is to limit the number of pass-the-buck support calls that start at $isp and get bounced back saying we don't support that yet, call whoever makes your router. Not necessarily. dd-wrt lacks the memory expense of the silly web interface that Linksys is oh so fond of implementing in their consumer grade boxen. I suspect that adding features to the Linksys code may be a bit tighter on image and data space than dd-wrt's stripped down efficiency. For cheap access points, we run OpenWRT on something like a 32M/8M WRT54G-TM, and there's never been a problem with memory, even after adding somewhat piggy (for embedded) stuff like ntpd. Of course, the normal platforms are a bit more cramped. It's apparently very easy to add IPv6 to OpenWRT, and you can opt to include or exclude things like a web interface. It's fairly competent and can support things like multi-SSID. Good place to start if you're used to a UNIX shell environment and Linux. Anyways, the point is, a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done to make multiple IPv6 firmwares for many of these devices. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:16:03 + Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote: On 1 April 2010 00:05, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 01/04/2010 00:40, Michael Dillon wrote: In fact, consumer demand for IPv6 is close to 100%. Michael, I think you fat-fingered 0%. Just to be clear, I'm talking about the real world here. I did not fat finger anything. In the real world, nearly 100% of consumers demand IPv6 from their ISP. Exactly. Running out of Internet Phone Numbers is an unacceptable excuse to both customers and ISP management. But consumers are not techies so they don't talk that way with acronyms and technical gobbledygook version numbers. In plain English they tell us that they want the Internet access service to just plain work. They want it to work all the time, including tomorrow and if they move across town, or to another city, they want to order a move from the ISP, and have it done in a few days. ISPs who don't have IPv6 will soon be unable to provide access to all Internet sites, as content providers begin to bring IPv6 sites onstream. And ISPs without IPv6 will not be able to continue growing their networks, even for something as trivial as an existing customer who moves to a different PoP. The approaching time is going to be a crisis for the ISP industry, and the press will tar some ISPs in a very bad light if they can't smoothly introduce IPv6. There will be bargain basement sellouts and happy MA departments at ISPs with foresight who got their IPv6 capability ready early. It's now like the calm before the storm. We know that a battle is coming and we know roughly where and when it will be fought. Reports from the field indicate that all is quiet, but that is normal just before the battle commences. The wise general will not be put off by these reports of peace and quiet, but will prepare his forces and keep an eye on the preparations of his adversaries. --Michael Dillon
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On 3/31/2010 22:12, Dan White wrote: On 31/03/10 22:14 -0300, jim deleskie wrote: I'm a real life user, I know the difference and I could careless about v6. most anything I want I is on v4 and will still be there long after ( when ever it is) we run out of v4 addresses. If I'm on a From a content perspective, you may be right. Those with a quickly dwindling supply of v4 addresses will most likely use what they have left for business customers, and for content. However, there will be a time when a significant number of customers will not be able to access your content. content provider and I'm putting something new online I want everyone to see, they will find away for all of us with v4 and credit cards to see it, and not be so worried about developing countries or the sub 5% of people in developed countries for now. I'm sure @ some point v6 There is an indication here of the fault that is present in way too much of the world. We have here another example of [engineers|elites|experts|people-with-soap-boxes] think something is a good idea THEREFORE Everybody wants it. My rant here needs refurbishment to account for wireless connections, but I've gotten a lot of mileage out of it. Most people of the world want something to eat. Omitting all of the intermediate steps, the few that have all of their other needs taken care of want smart wall paper. Most care not a whit how the wallpaper does it, they just want when the plug a lamp into it to get light. A toaster, warmed bread. A computer, to be able to exchange email, read the news, watch pornography, or play games. -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On 4/1/2010 09:13, Larry Sheldon wrote: Most care not a whit how the wallpaper does it, they just want when the plug a lamp into it to get light. A toaster, warmed bread. A computer, to be able to exchange email, read the news, watch pornography, or play games. Kindasorta related: http://www.4-blockworld.com/2010/03/computers-just-keep-getting-cheaper-and-better.html -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Re: FTC / Nexband
In message 20100330130917.ga32...@vacation.karoshi.com., bmann...@vacation.ka roshi.com writes: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 03:03:48PM +0200, Colin Alston wrote: In the real world, the result is more like: [coffee ~]$ dig +short adsl.fultontelephone.net A ;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode. dig: dns_rdata_totext: ran out of space Logged as: [ISC-Bugs #21113] dig +short, fixed buffer size So yeah... if someone wants to correct that, it would be great. And if everyone else in the world can please not EVER do something like this, that would also be good. anyone for reverse mapping an IPv6 /32? --bill You only need to add PTR records for the addresses in use. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
CPE Ethernet switch suggestions
Lately I've been delivering triple play services over a single CAT5 drop from a IDF to customers. We have been using small SOHO switches but they've been turning into a bit of a hassle since we have to stage each switch before deployment. I want remove the initial staging step by allowing the installer to just plug the switch in and have the switch grab a config from a TFTP server noted by a DHCP option. Features that I would absolutely need for the switch to be viable: IGMP Snooping Dot1q VLAN tagging Preferably 8-ports A decent set of rate limiting options (5/10/20Mbps) Extra bonus if it can also be PoE powered Does anyone on list know of such a dream CPE device?
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On 03/31/2010 08:52 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: We have just (anecdotally, empirically) established earlier in this thread, that anything smaller than a mid-sized business, can't even *GET* IPv6 easily (at least in the USA); much less care about it. fwiw, that last time I was at a company that needed a prefix, we wrote up an addressing plan, applied, received an assignment, payed our money and were done. if a pool of public addresses are a resource you need to But were you able to get transit that let you use the address space? I'm sure it's getting better, but as recently as 2 years ago it was near impossible to get for most areas (and most providers, and most colo facilities). -- david raistrickhttp://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html dr...@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
Adding to the recent debate over raised v's solid floor, seem there's another option that wasn't discussed... http://www.iphouse.com/ Scott.
Re: Home CPE choice
Having significant experience with all three products, I will strongly suggest going with the SRX-100 if at all possible. It's real JunOS, even if it does take a bit of bludgeoning to get it to stop impersonating a netscreen security model. It's the same price the NS5GTs used to sell for ~$5-600 (512MB/1G) and has a great deal more to offer (like fully functional routing protocols and JunOS configuration environment). Most of the NS5GTs I ever deployed in always-on environments didn't last more than about 3-4 years. The SSG-5s I've dealt with haven't started dying yet, but, most of them are only about 2 years old. Owen On Mar 31, 2010, at 7:39 PM, jones...@gmail.com wrote: Netscreen 5GTs will also do IPv6 with some ScreenOS 5.4 code revs (5.4.0r10.0 for sure). Those pop up on Ebay for $60ish and make respectable home CPE devices. Not quite the horsepower of the SSG5 but they seem to hold up reasonably well. Dan Jones Juniper's SSG5 and SRX100 are nice options for home. I've enjoyed an SSG5 for awhile now. SRX100 for junos. SSG5's pop up on ebay occasionally for a few $100. -Iain On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Marty Anstey marty.ans...@sunwave.netwrote: Hopefully this e-mail is considered operational content :) The recent thread on the new linkys kit and ipv6 support got me thinking about CPE choice. What good off the shelf solutions are out there? Should one buy the high end d-link/linksys/netgear products? I've had bad experiences with those (netgear in particular). Should one get a real cisco router? The 877 or something? Maybe an ASA or the new small business targeted ISR (can't recall the model number off hand right now). There is mikrotik but I'm not so sure about the operating system. Is there a market for a new breed of CPE running OpenWRT or pfsense on hardware with enough CPU/RAM to not fall over? Granted that won't cost $79.00 at best buy. However it seems to me that decent CPE is going to run a couple hundred dollars in order to have sufficient ram/cpu. My current home router is a cisco 1841. I keep my 6mbps DSL line pretty much saturated all the time. Often times my wife will be watching Hulu in the living room, I'll be streaming music and running torrents (granted I have tuned my Azures client fairly well) all at the same time and it's a good experience. Running that kind of traffic load through my linksys would cause it to need a reboot once or more a day. What are folks here running in SOHO environments that doesn't require too frequent oil changes :) I run FreeBSD on a PIII; I can easily saturate my 15mbit cable connection without it breaking a sweat. I also have a couple Cisco 2610's, one of which is my ipv6 tunnel endpoint. -M -- -- - Iain Morris iain.t.mor...@gmail.com
Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
Until there are common sites that are only accessible via IPv6 -- thus unavailable to unevolved ISP customers, ISP won't be investing anything in IPv6 deployment. That's not to say ISPs aren't experimenting with it -- some are, simply that they are not putting any heavy engineering resources behind it. I beg to differ. I know several ISPs that have been quietly putting quite a bit of engineering resource behind IPv6. The public announcement of residential IPv6 trials by Comcast was not the beginning of a serious commitment to IPv6 by Comcast, but, rather more towards the middle. Comcast has had substantial engineering resources on IPv6 for several years now. Will IPv6-only content be common soon? Probably not for at least another 5 years. Will IPv6-only eye-balls with severely degraded IPv4 customer experiences be common sooner? You bet. That one is unavoidable as there simply won't be IPv4 address space to use for some significant fraction of those customers. Owen
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On Mar 31, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: Dan White wrote: Are you willing to gamble your business on your expectations? Business models will develop that will take advantage of global addressing to end devices. The Next Big (Nth) Thing will. Do you feel that you have a perfect Crystal Ball, or do you want to start hedging your bets now? ^^ Doubt. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ We have just (anecdotally, empirically) established earlier in this thread, that anything smaller than a mid-sized business, can't even *GET* IPv6 easily (at least in the USA); much less care about it. Huh??? I missed that somewhere. The previous paragraph is: Falsehood Uncertainty Doubt Contrary evidence: whois -h whois.arin.net 2620:0:930::/48 -- ARIN Direct Assignment Multihomed Household Qualified under stricter policy than is now in effect. http://www.tunnelbroker.net (yes, I work there, but, you don't have to work there to get a /48 for free). Talking about a crystal ball, in my view, is just a lot of hand-waving that means I don't have a real-world example to point to. http://www.delong.com Real world web site multi-homed, dual-stacked, and running just fine. Talking about the Next Big Thing means that somehow, the NBT will be present without any residential or small business broadband users partaking in it. Sounds like a pretty small piece of the pie for the NBT... Again, conclusions not in evidence. It's easy for anyone who wants it to get IPv6 and IPv6 connectivity. Sure, native IPv6 is a little harder to get, but, overall, I'm doing OK with tunnels of various forms and native will be coming along shortly in many many more places. Owen
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
Adding to the recent debate over raised v's solid floor, seem there's another option that wasn't discussed... http://www.iphouse.com/ Nice to see smaller companies take the time to put up a good April fool's joke as well.
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
LoL Best April fools I've seen un quite a while! Thanks for sharing Bryan On Apr 1, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote: Adding to the recent debate over raised v's solid floor, seem there's another option that wasn't discussed... http://www.iphouse.com/ Scott.
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
Our schedule for replacing the carpet was accelerated due to an approaching forced service contract expiration on our Roombas. The carpet pile was just getting to be too short for the Roombas to be efficient in their routes, and they would sometimes choke. Shear brilliance. That must be rather surprising to people used to standard facilities, seeing a hoard of Roombas stalking you... -Jack Carrozzo On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote: Adding to the recent debate over raised v's solid floor, seem there's another option that wasn't discussed... http://www.iphouse.com/ Scott.
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
Nice to see smaller companies take the time to put up a good April fool's joke as well. ...Wow I got totally owned. Retreating to my corner, -Jack Carrozzo On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Michael Holstein michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote: Adding to the recent debate over raised v's solid floor, seem there's another option that wasn't discussed... http://www.iphouse.com/ Nice to see smaller companies take the time to put up a good April fool's joke as well.
RE: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
Some questions: What about dust? Wouldn't the carpet hold down more dust then a regular floor, and at some point, the dust could kick back up and go right back into the servers? What about maintenance of the floor? (sweep/brooming wise) Isn't it easier to use something like iRobot on a flat floor than a carpeted one? I don't know the exact coding standards, but would it not be better to use those sound proof materials in the corner and walls around the datacenter? Wouldn't a carpet be bad for possible fires/flames or sparks? Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:55:20 -0700 Subject: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet? From: sc...@doc.net.au To: nanog@nanog.org Adding to the recent debate over raised v's solid floor, seem there's another option that wasn't discussed... http://www.iphouse.com/ Scott.
Home CPE choice - summary
Thank you everyone for your replies! :) It's been great having an operational type discussion. Here is my summary of the thread: Software: Linux: Vyatta IPCop Astaro BSD: pfSense m0n0wall (I didn't know this was the base for pfSense until I started researching it today) Appliances: Juniper. I have taken a Juniper course and have the Oreilly book, but I'm a Cisco guy pretty much through and through. Cisco 871 (I see these pop up on craigslist a fair amount. I suppose I'll pick one up and add it to my lab) Fritz!box (not available in the US) :( I would love to get my hands on one of these. Hardware: Alix/Gumstix/Sokeris Various full desktop systems I got some great hardware sizing advice offline which referenced http://www.pfsense.org/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=52Itemid=49 My choice: pfSense on a Dell Optiplex (dual core, 1 gig of ram). I think this should be more then sufficient for performing WAN duties and routing on a stick for my 3548 switch. I currently have an 1841 performing those duties and really like it. However I need it for my cisco cert studies. :) I was originally going to deploy pfSense in a KVM VM, but it appears BSD paravirtualization support may not be up to the level that Linux is at. If anyone has experience with this, please let me know. I have everything else deployed in virtual machines, but after reading a bit it seems that pfSense in a VM would consume a lot of CPU resources even doing moderate amounts of traffic (10 mbps). I don't want to starve out my other virtual machines.
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
On Apr 1, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Brandon Kim wrote: Wouldn't a carpet be bad for possible fires/flames or sparks? Looks like they got 2, now... -j
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
Nice to see smaller companies take the time to put up a good April fool's joke as well. Carpeted datacenters are no joke, check out Telehouse in London Docklands, the existing two buildings have been *fully carpeted* in both the corridors and data floors for some time (but as carpeted tiles, not a continual carpet, a bit like this: http://www.allcarpets.com.au/images/carpettiles.jpg) Dave.
RE: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
hahaha I fell for it HOOK LINE AND SINKER!!! DAMN YOU GUYS Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:43:21 -0400 Subject: Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet? From: j...@crepinc.com To: michael.holst...@csuohio.edu CC: nanog@nanog.org Nice to see smaller companies take the time to put up a good April fool's joke as well. Wow I got totally owned. Retreating to my corner, -Jack Carrozzo On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Michael Holstein michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote: Adding to the recent debate over raised v's solid floor, seem there's another option that wasn't discussed... http://www.iphouse.com/ Nice to see smaller companies take the time to put up a good April fool's joke as well.
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:18:54 EDT, Patrick Giagnocavo said: However, there will be a time when a significant number of customers will not be able to access your content. ^^ Uncertainty . What percentage of sales are you willing to eat? ^^ Fear . Are you willing to gamble your business on your expectations? Business models will develop that will take advantage of global addressing to end devices. The Next Big (Nth) Thing will. Do you feel that you have a perfect Crystal Ball, or do you want to start hedging your bets now? ^^ Doubt. So tell me Patrick - if you're not doing anything about it while it's still FUD, that leaves 2 questions: 1) How long will it take for you to design, test, and deploy once it's no longer FUD? 2) Will your business survive the ensuing pain waiting for deploy to complete? pgpCU6vWLXcAj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 192.0.0.0/24
On 30 Mar 2010, at 8:24, Leo Vegoda wrote: On 29 Mar 2010, at 11:17, Lou Katz wrote: We recently were told to contact a client (via ftp) at 192.0.0.201. IANA lists this as Special Use, but refers to RFC 3330 for additional information. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt;. This RFC says that it might be assigned in the future. RFC 3330 was obsoleted with the publication of RFC 5735. I thought I'd updated all the references we made to RFC 3330 but if I've missed one I'd be grateful if you could point me to it. I have now updated the registration for 192.0.0.0/24 in the ARIN whois database with more current references. Regards, Leo
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 4/1/10 1:15 PM, Brandon Kim wrote: hahaha I fell for it HOOK LINE AND SINKER!!! DAMN YOU GUYS Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:43:21 -0400 Subject: Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet? From: j...@crepinc.com To: michael.holst...@csuohio.edu CC: nanog@nanog.org Nice to see smaller companies take the time to put up a good April fool's joke as well. Wow I got totally owned. Retreating to my corner, -Jack Carrozzo On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Michael Holstein michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote: Adding to the recent debate over raised v's solid floor, seem there's another option that wasn't discussed... http://www.iphouse.com/ Nice to see smaller companies take the time to put up a good April fool's joke as well. Its an april fools joke for them. Dare I say that I have actually seen DCs with carpeting. My jaw dropped but it does exist. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLtN/cAAoJEOcnyWxdB1IrBoQH/1gTCRTcqCzsEVLxkxvuRKrb hdMT2YdoEe6L2iw1mbq4Gie1OrPIQdS5WwyraVqhlyL8BfSJ64bxWXj+FnqvK7fd 4ZTrbtWbS9yaPm/IO2CrD6FsVzrAH31czYQkpliJpJ9/V3PpfXFz+Bflq9STYhQR /bAGFbivqhWooGV+pL2dYjej84kTaGfmPxhic8nuiNgGY8b57lusutTtx7CXbsUK 9dQk4o2GUHAYtmQdXe4p6/MyWobsfUxOlEz8O1zGciN8tEBasbf0Vp/QodSUCVAi 3HnDeBOd9UwJO4qViGkZUiUvvMi5V9IcloHOIc7TC6ky9bRDuxedyQrSB76vlKk= =maX4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
Its an april fools joke for them. Dare I say that I have actually seen DCs with carpeting. My jaw dropped but it does exist. We had carpeted floor tiles in a data center where I used to work. It was bound to the raised floor panels, and I was told it had anti static properties. Never noticed a static issue, but the room had proper air handlers with humidity control. The room was still loud, I'm not sure what dampening attributes it had for noise reduction. After a while the tiles start to wear a bit on the edges I suppose, but they had been in place for 5 years I believe and it looked fine (other than where liquid spills occoured on a distant side where people had some cubicles.) The puller to lift floor tiles had evil teeth, not suction cups. It could bite. - Ethan O'Toole
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: And on that note, I enclose the following, which was rejected by the RFC Editor, but seems relevant to this discussion, so here's the draft. Well of course it was rejected - using 257/8 sets the Evil Bit - you need to make that block Reserved. It may still have some applications as an augmentation to 127/8, so 257.0.0.1 is the address of your Evil Twin.
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
Its an april fools joke for them. Dare I say that I have actually seen DCs with carpeting. My jaw dropped but it does exist. We had carpeted floor tiles in a data center where I used to work. It was bound to the raised floor panels, and I was told it had anti static properties. Never noticed a static issue, but the room had proper air handlers with humidity control. Anti-static properties are obtained easily enough but sometimes the material requires periodic re-treating; the normal industrial chemical products like Staticide and Stat-trol are sometimes a little stinky and not always something you want to spray unless you can let it dry overnite. Since the floor tile does not have to be covered in tile and can have metal directly below the carpet, I would imagine that the anti-static properties would be halfway decent even with minimal treatments. Those who do not care for the stench of stinky chemicals seem to favor treating with Downy (yes, really, no Apr1). Especially in the earlier days of the Internet, where small ISP's set up shops in existing space, it seemed quite common to find them spraying a water/Downy mix on the carpets periodically, which left a characteristically odd boy are my clothes ever so soft today smell, and really did a number on static. What amazes me these days is how common it is to go someplace where the cubies are in dry conditions with carpets, and you see people hauling gear and cards back and forth while you can feel the static. You can get regular anti-static carpeting for office spaces too, though the problem with anything carrying the label anti-static tends to be expense. The meaning of the term also varies, ranging from static reduction to static suppression to static elimination. Ah, here we go: http://staticsmart.com/esd-static-control-products/access_floors.php ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Raised floor, Solid floor... or carpet?
The old carpeting pics of iphouse looks like the one NIKHEF still has in Amsterdam. It is one of AMS-IX' locations. Telehouse North in London also has wonderfull carpeting... Bas
RE: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
I beg to differ. I know several ISPs that have been quietly putting quite a bit of engineering resource behind IPv6. The public announcement of residential IPv6 trials by Comcast was not the beginning of a serious commitment to IPv6 by Comcast, but, rather more towards the middle. Comcast has had substantial engineering resources on IPv6 for several years now. None of my transit providers currently offer native ipv6 where we are located. One recent vendor said they could tunnel 6 over 4 but any network address blocks assigned to that network would change at some point in the future. In other words, we could do v6 over 4 now but we would have to renumber later. What I heard at a recent (within the past six months) conference was that there is no customer demand for v6 so it isn't on the immediate needs list. He said they had a lot of inquiries about v6, but to date not having native v6 wasn't a deal breaker with anyone. So my instincts tell me that until not being native v6 capable IS a deal breaker with potential clients, it isn't really going to go on the front burner. Many companies operate on the it isn't a problem until it is a problem model. George
Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
What I heard at a recent (within the past six months) conference was that there is no customer demand for v6 so it isn't on the immediate needs list. He said they had a lot of inquiries about v6, but to date not having native v6 wasn't a deal breaker with anyone. Last time we renegotiated transit contracts, we specified IPv6 as an absolute requirement. *Native* IPv6 was an added plus. As it turned out, two of our chosen transit providers could deliver native IPv6 from day one, and the third a few months later. Native IPv6 availability was one of several factors used to make the decision between transit providers. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Important: IPv4 Future Allocation Concept RFC
Someone suggested this be posted more visibly. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. Network Working Group Joe Greco Request for Comments: []sol.net Network Services Category: Experimental April 1, 2010 Expires March 2011 IPv4 Future Allocation Is Limited Unless Registries Expand Status of this Memo Distribution of this memo is unlimited. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as work in progress. The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract The momentum of the currently deployed IPv4 network has resulted in a slower transition to IPv6 than expected, and IPv4 address reserves may soon be exhausted. This memo defines an additional class of IPv4 space which may be deployed as an interim solution. Greco, Joe Expires March 2011 FORMFEED[Page 1] Internet Draft IPv4 Class F Space April 1, 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Classful Addressing .2 2.1. Expansion via Classful Addressing ..3 2.2. Impact on existing infrastructure ..3 2.3. Negative aspects to extending IPv4 lifetime 4 2.4. Positive aspects to extending IPv4 lifetime 4 2.5. Adjusted estimated IPv4 depletion date .4 2.6. Impact on IPv6 adoption 4 3. Security Considerations .5 4. IANA Considerations .5 5. References ..5 5.1. Informative References .5 5.2. Acknowledgements ...5 1. Introduction The current Internet addressing scheme has been reasonably successful at providing an Internet capable of providing network services to users. However, because of massive growth and the increasing number of networks being connected to the Internet, an ongoing shortage of network numbers has brought us close to the point where assignable IPv4 prefixes are exhausted. To combat this, the Internet is currently undergoing a major transition to IPv6. Despite the looming exhaustion of IPv4 space [IPv4_Report], IPv6 adoption rates have been slower than expected. Policy suggestions to extend the availability of IPv4 have ranged from reclamation of unused legacy IPv4 delegations [ICANN_feb08] to the use of carrier-grade NAT to place most customers of service providers on RFC1918 space [Nishitani]. We propose a different solution to the problem. RFC 1365 [RFC1365] and RFC 1375 [RFC1375] suggest some possible methods for implementing additional address classes. While classful addressing is now considered obsolete, the use of class to refer to a particular portion of the IPv4 address space is still useful for that purpose. Allocations within this space are expected to conform to existing CIDR allocation guidelines. By allocating an additional class, we gain a substantial amount of IP space. Greco, Joe Expires March 2011 FORMFEED[Page 2] Internet Draft IPv4 Class F Space April 1, 2010 2. Classful Addressing Classful addressing was introduced in RFC 791 [RFC791], providing Class A, B, and C spaces. RFC 1700 [RFC1700] defines Class D and E, and we derive the resulting table: Leading Network Class BitsBits Range -- --- --- - A 0 8 .0.n.n.n-127.n.n.n B10
RE: Important: IPv4 Future Allocation Concept RFC
That is the best thing I've seen today. Kudos to whoever wrote that. :) -Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 3:42 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Important: IPv4 Future Allocation Concept RFC Someone suggested this be posted more visibly. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. Network Working Group Joe Greco Request for Comments: []sol.net Network Services Category: Experimental April 1, 2010 Expires March 2011 IPv4 Future Allocation Is Limited Unless Registries Expand Status of this Memo Distribution of this memo is unlimited. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as work in progress. The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract The momentum of the currently deployed IPv4 network has resulted in a slower transition to IPv6 than expected, and IPv4 address reserves may soon be exhausted. This memo defines an additional class of IPv4 space which may be deployed as an interim solution. Greco, Joe Expires March 2011 FORMFEED[Page 1] Internet Draft IPv4 Class F Space April 1, 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Classful Addressing .2 2.1. Expansion via Classful Addressing ..3 2.2. Impact on existing infrastructure ..3 2.3. Negative aspects to extending IPv4 lifetime 4 2.4. Positive aspects to extending IPv4 lifetime 4 2.5. Adjusted estimated IPv4 depletion date .4 2.6. Impact on IPv6 adoption 4 3. Security Considerations .5 4. IANA Considerations .5 5. References ..5 5.1. Informative References .5 5.2. Acknowledgements ...5 1. Introduction The current Internet addressing scheme has been reasonably successful at providing an Internet capable of providing network services to users. However, because of massive growth and the increasing number of networks being connected to the Internet, an ongoing shortage of network numbers has brought us close to the point where assignable IPv4 prefixes are exhausted. To combat this, the Internet is currently undergoing a major transition to IPv6. Despite the looming exhaustion of IPv4 space [IPv4_Report], IPv6 adoption rates have been slower than expected. Policy suggestions to extend the availability of IPv4 have ranged from reclamation of unused legacy IPv4 delegations [ICANN_feb08] to the use of carrier-grade NAT to place most customers of service providers on RFC1918 space [Nishitani]. We propose a different solution to the problem. RFC 1365 [RFC1365] and RFC 1375 [RFC1375] suggest some possible methods for implementing additional address classes. While classful addressing is now considered obsolete, the use of class to refer to a particular portion of the IPv4 address space is still useful for that purpose. Allocations within this space are expected to conform to existing CIDR allocation guidelines. By allocating an additional class, we gain a substantial amount of IP space. Greco, Joe Expires March 2011 FORMFEED[Page 2] Internet Draft IPv4 Class F Space April 1, 2010 2. Classful Addressing Classful addressing was introduced in RFC 791 [RFC791], providing Class
Re: Important: IPv4 Future Allocation Concept RFC
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Joe Greco wrote: Someone suggested this be posted more visibly. Sooo, uh, timely :) Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: t...@lava.net
Re: Important: IPv4 Future Allocation Concept RFC
At 06:41 PM 4/1/2010, Joe Greco wrote: Ok, this is weird. I had suggested almost exactly this same scheme to someone else earlier today. When did you put the bug in my office? Greg D. Moore President moor...@greenms.com Ask me about lily, an RPI based chat system: http://lilycore.sourceforge.net/ Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 07:58:22 -0500 To: Dan White dwh...@olp.net cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org From: Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Just to play with, I purchased a soekris net5501 board (very nice board for that price) and planning to start playing with it using FreeBSD. I took a look at the RouterBoard but the firmware license is too restrictive and there is no much hacking (well there is always a way to hack) you can do, but they are dirty cheap. Cheers Jorge You can cross-compile openwrt for RouterBoard (check which models, though), and that would mean no license fee for the software. Maybe that voids some warranty, but if warrantys for sub-US$100 equipment are really worth anything, what would anybody offer me for several dozen mostly Linksys with some D-Link, Netgear and at least one each of Dynix and Belkin SOHO routers? Also, the Mikrotik RouterOS license is bundled with the hardware purchase, too, so it might be years before you'd need to spend another US$45 to update that to a new version, if you want to run RouterOS instead of something else. Dale
Re: Important: IPv4 Future Allocation Concept RFC
On 4/1/2010 15:41, Joe Greco wrote: Someone suggested this be posted more visibly. ... JG LOL smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: FTC / Nexband
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: You only need to add PTR records for the addresses in use. Not really the way most automated dns provisioning systems work today .. and where would they be without $GENERATE in bind? :) -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Re: Top 50 Bad Hosts Networks 2009
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, John Doe wrote: http://hostexploit.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=201 Itemid=106 AS23456 will just continue to grow I guess, but considering the quite few networks with 32bit ASN I guesss it might be an advantage for some abusing networks to actually get this as some tracking tools doesn't seem to support it and it's thus harder to find the responsible network. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Note change in IANA registry URLs (was: Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?)
On Mar 31, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Dan White wrote: […] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ I think it's worth pointing out again that the URLs for IANA registries have changed and the old URLs, like the one above, will be going away from next week. Anyone automatically parsing the registries should make sure they adjust their scripts before then. Full details can be found in the announcement: http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=933k2=50520tid=1270181265 and the URL for all registries can always be found from: http://www.iana.org/protocols/ Regards, Leo
Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
Subject: Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Date: Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:35:32PM +0200 Quoting sth...@nethelp.no (sth...@nethelp.no): What I heard at a recent (within the past six months) conference was that there is no customer demand for v6 so it isn't on the immediate needs list. He said they had a lot of inquiries about v6, but to date not having native v6 wasn't a deal breaker with anyone. Last time we renegotiated transit contracts, we specified IPv6 as an absolute requirement. *Native* IPv6 was an added plus. We went further and required native. At 10GE interconnect speed, one is in the recently-upgraded core or metro access layer of most providers. These parts of the network have been ready (if not set up) for v6 for at least 5 years now. Did not pose a problem. All I need to do now is to set up the peering ;-) Had I been looking for a FE transit I'd had much more issues with v6 connectivity. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 INSIDE, I have the same personality disorder as LUCY RICARDO!! pgpN21DBvt3S1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On Apr 1, 2010, at 8:13 AM, david raistrick wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On 03/31/2010 08:52 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: We have just (anecdotally, empirically) established earlier in this thread, that anything smaller than a mid-sized business, can't even *GET* IPv6 easily (at least in the USA); much less care about it. fwiw, that last time I was at a company that needed a prefix, we wrote up an addressing plan, applied, received an assignment, payed our money and were done. if a pool of public addresses are a resource you need to But were you able to get transit that let you use the address space? I'm sure it's getting better, but as recently as 2 years ago it was near impossible to get for most areas (and most providers, and most colo facilities). Worst case, it's easy with a free tunnel now, and, in most cases, better solutions are readily available. Owen
