Fw: new message
Hey! New message, please read <http://inhouse.onnet.edu.vn/sleep.php?297> Durand Alain
Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC
Who said the water at the bottom of the barrel of IPv4 addresses will be very pure? We ARE running out and the global pain is increasing. - Alain. On 1/21/10 6:47 PM, "Bulger, Tim" wrote: > Having 1/8 allocated cannot be a blessing... There must be thousands of > underskilled in the wild with stuff configured for 1/8. It's like a > magnet for unwanted noise traffic. > > -Tim > > -Original Message- > From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:leo.veg...@icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:37 PM > To: Leo Vegoda > Subject: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC > > Hi, > > The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation > of two /8 IPv4 blocks to APNIC in January 2010: 1/8 and > 27/8. You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xm > l > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xm > l > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.tx > t > > Please update your filters as appropriate. > > The IANA free pool contains 24 unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s. > > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda > Number Resources Manager, IANA > ICANN > * > This message has originated from R. L. Polk & Co., > 26955 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, MI 48033. > R. L. Polk & Co. sends various types of email > communications. If this email message concerns the > potential licensing of a Polk product or service, and > you do not wish to receive further emails regarding Polk > products, forward this email to do_not_s...@polk.com > with the word "remove" in the subject line. > > The email and any files transmitted with it are confidential > and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. > > If you have received this email in error, please delete this > message and notify the Polk System Administrator at > postmas...@polk.com. > * >
Re: Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?
On 1/17/10 1:01 PM, "Leo Bicknell" wrote: But, i am legitimately interested in perceived >> service gaps or issues, given this tightly controlled service >> definition (web and email). > > I think the phones stopped being "tightly controlled" with the > iPhone and Android phones. They expect generic IP connectivty, and > are very much not web and e-mail only. Moreso than an IPv6 only > provider, a web and e-mail only provider would probbaly find > themselves at a huge disadvantage to a significant and growing > segment of the market. +1 I made a number of demonstration of mail and web service on an IPv6-only workstation back in early 2000, in my Solaris days. Even ten years ago, it was clear this would not be enough... - Alain.
Re: Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?
On 1/17/10 11:59 AM, "Cameron Byrne" wrote: > It's unfortunate for me that nobody is interested in talking about the > question I asked in light of the data i supplied. The question being, > is it possible for a mobile operator to offer an IPv6-only service > today to casual Internet users on new devices with new service plans? > Perhaps it is just a rhetorical question because the video obviously > shows it is possible. But, i am legitimately interested in perceived > service gaps or issues, given this tightly controlled service > definition (web and email). I would hope my last emails start to address this point. The single most impediment I see to deploy IPv6-only networks is the combined effect of the 2 long tails: on one side, the content is today mostly IPv4-only accessible, making it a disincentive to build v6-only access network, and on the other side, the apps are for the vast majority IPv4 centric, making it a disincentive to offer content over IPv6, to build an Ipv6 capable device that cannot use those apps or to build v6-only access networks in the first place... This realization was the starting point of the development of the DS-lite technology. - Alain.
Re: Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?
On 1/16/10 10:52 AM, "Cam Byrne" wrote: > >A dual-stack capable host like windows 7 does not ensure any ipv6 network access beyond the local LAN, especially given todays ipv4-only >service dominance. There are various ways to translate or tunnel to solve this problem, connecting v6 and v4 islands, including nat64 and ds-lite ===> Well, it all depends on which applications are in use. If the app running on the windows 7 side only works in IPv4 or if the app on the other side is only serving IPv4, there is little choice but to tunnel IPv4 over IPv6 in the middle. See, for many years, when we were thinking about IPv4/IPv6 transition, we looked at it a stack issue. I think we were missing something. We now have seen tons of IPv6 capable stacks (Win XP, Vista, 7, MacOS, Linux, Solaris,...) and still very little apps that take advantage of this, either on the client side, or on the content side. Just ask how many of the 100,000+ apps on the iPhone are IPv6 ready... Btw, on the content side, the situation is quite complex too, because it is not just about configuring apache for IPv6, this is about having a load balancing, content delivery, monitoring,... solution in place. What DS-lite gives you is the ability to de-couple the deployment of the network (including the host stacks) with IPv6 from the deployment of the applications with IPv6. I do believe there is a lot of value in this. > >- Alain. On 1/16/10 10:52 AM, "Cam Byrne" wrote: > > A dual-stack capable host like windows 7 does not ensure any ipv6 network > access beyond the local LAN, especially given todays ipv4-only service > dominance. There are various ways to translate or tunnel to solve this > problem, connecting v6 and v4 islands, including nat64 and ds-lite > >
Re: Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?
On 1/16/10 8:03 AM, "Jim Burwell" wrote: > Could well be the case. My idea was that you could do it either way. > You could have a DS-Lite gateway (Typical. Likely built into the "cable > modem" or similar device), or in the case where no gateway is available, > a DS-Lite "client" (basically a virtual nic/tunnel driver) on the > machine would establish the tunnel and an IPv4 address itself. But > perhaps this latter method was never intended? You mean, tunnel directly to the end host? We have been thinking about extensions to allow that 'short-cut', AFTR-less mode. It is doable if you can establish a 1 to 1 mapping between the IPv4 and the IPv6 address **and** you find a way for host A to figure out host B's IPv4 and IPv6 addresses... - Alain.
Re: Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?
[resending with more readable, apologies for the duplicate] DS-lite can work both for fixed and wireless scenario, where you have a laptop/pda/smarphone/tablet that is only configured by the access network with IPv6 but want to access IPv4 content FROM IPv4 applications. This is the main difference between DS-lite and NAT64. NAT64 requires all applications on the user device to be IPv6 compatible. Now, that may or may not be an issue. If you are talking about a proprietary wireless device that run only proprietary apps, porting all those apps to IPv6 prior to launching the service may be ok... However, if the device can run external apps, like those coming from an app store, or running pre-existing apps (I¹m thinking about the gazillions apps existing on the iPhone), then a NAT64 solution will force a complete rewrite of every single one of those apps... DS-lite would enable all those apps to keep working. Big difference. - Alain.
Re: Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?
> > I have looked at DS-lite very carefully. First, DS-Lite fits better > for cable operators since they have CPE and can have a DS-lite > function in the CPE that they control, and that in turn allows them to > provide IPv4, IPv6, and dual-stack to the end-host that they do not > control. DS-Lite does not fit as well for a mobile phones since it > would require a major change to the phone's OS. Second, DS-Lite > requires tunneling as well as translation, so it is one more piece of > overhead in addition to NAT64 solution. For me, i believe it is less > complex to manage a single stack IPv6 host with NAT64 translation than > a dual stack host, tunneling infrastructure, as well as NAT44 CGN, > which is what DS-lite requires. They both achieve the same result, > but I believe in the mobile space there is a quicker time to market as > well as more progress toward the end-goal of IPv6-only using NAT64 > than DS-lite. > > ===> DS-lite can work both for fixed and wireless scenario, where you have a > laptop/pda/smarphone/tablet > that is only configured by the access network with IPv6 but want to access > IPv4 content FROM IPv4 applications. > This is the main difference between DS-lite and NAT64. NAT64 requires all > application on the user device to be IPv6 compatible. > Now, that may or may not be an issue. If you are talking about a proprietary > wireless device that run only proprietary apps, > porting all those apps to IPv6 prior to launching the service may be ok... > However, if the device can run external apps, like those coming > from an app store, or running pre-existing apps (I¹m thinking about the > gazillions apps existing on the iPhone), then a NAT64 solution > will force a complete rewrite of every single one of those apps... DS-lite > would enable all those apps to keep working. Big difference. > > - Alain. >
Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.
On 12/2/09 7:24 PM, "Brandon Galbraith" wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Matthew Dodd wrote: > >> > I meant to say 6to4, sorry about that. Nothing special there. >> > >> > -Matt >> > >> > > 4to6 would be a mighty nice feature on a CPE =) ===> If you are thinking about only giving a v6 address to a CPE and still offering a v4 service, there is a technology for that, it is called dual-stack lite. See http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-02.txt - Alain.
Re: Who has AS 1712?
On 11/23/09 7:25 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote: > how to prevent new instances, both asn and ip? > The whole value of the RIR is to guarantee this uniqueness. This problem should not have happened. The fact that it has is troublesome. I¹ll make a guess that this is a result of a clerical error somewhere in the chain... The answer to the above question seems to be stricter process. - Alain.
Re: ipv6 only DNS?
I would suggest to read RFC3901/BCP91: ³DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines² on this topic. - Alain. On 6/21/09 5:45 PM, "joel jaeggli" wrote: > In pratice, most clients are not their own recursive resolvers. > > Rui Ribeiro wrote: > >> >Hi Steve, >> > >> >An IPv6 only device can "hit" your server if all the DNS hierachy >> >resolves through IPv6. It works the same way as in IPv4. >> > >> >Rui >> > >> >2009/6/21 Steve Pirk : >>> >> Anyone have any experience with dns and ipv6? I did a lookup on a host >>> and >>> >> it came back with only an ipv6 record. Also shows up in ident as a valid >>> >> name. I was curious how an ipv6 only device would be able to hit my >>> server. >>> >> >>> >> Details and more info off list, tonight if possible. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> steve >>> >> >>> >> >> > >
Re: DHCPv6 PD chains vs bridging
On 5/5/09 4:38 PM, "David W. Hankins" wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:22:04PM -0400, Paul Timmins wrote: >> Sorry for the top post, but as a crazy thought here, why not throw out an >> RA, and if answered, go into transparent bridge mode? Let the sophisticated >> users who want routed behavior override it manually. > > Customer premise gear has a 'front side' and a 'back side', and it is > already well ingrained behaviour for 'back-to-back port chaining' to > create a single large bridged network in the home. What is the > customer's anticipated result from front-to-back chaining? What you really want to avoid is to have customer A's home network accidentally bridged to customer B's. L3 isolation of L2 domains helps. - Alain.
