>-Original Message-
>From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
>Anyone can write an informational rfc. See apr 1 as an example. One can
easily
>write up what they do, or survey responses. You can then follow the
feedback
>from your request.
That is exactly my point - if /126s are th
nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
My feeling is based on two things:
I don't like the idea of vendors/providers ignoring an RFC just
because.
And note the RFC in question leaves no wiggle room here.
Please cite chapter and verse. As
ther.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
>
> AboveNet and Savvis hardly count. AboveNet is a great carrier but
> small, and Savvis is a walking dead man hoping someone will buy him.
> Neither one has, nor will have, the budget or personnel to handle v6.
>
AboveNet and Savvis hardly count. AboveNet is a great carrier but
small, and Savvis is a walking dead man hoping someone will buy him.
Neither one has, nor will have, the budget or personnel to handle v6.
Level3 and Verizon both have v6 if you ask real nice. As does XO and
others.
On
> >Please cite chapter and verse. As long as you use static IPv6 addresses,
> /126
> >is fine. No, a /126 address does *not* have to be based on a 64 bit
> interface
> >ID.
>
>
> Sure ...
>
> RFC4291
> 2.5.1
> " For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
>value 00
>-Original Message-
>From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
>
>> My feeling is based on two things:
>> I don't like the idea of vendors/providers ignoring an RFC just because.
>> And
On Thursday 30 July 2009 03:06:10 am Kevin Loch wrote:
> Lots of folks, myself included use /112 for point to
> point links, server only subnets and just about anything
> that doesn't require RA's (which is almost everything in
> a hosting environment). /112 is a convenient bit
> boundary to work
> At 15:36 29/07/2009 -0300, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> >Hank,
> >
> >Any news on what exactly was EOL'ed ?
>
> I think it was a mistake on their part.
When I saw it I thought it was one of the (various)
license options that we all (were supposed to have)
bought to run BGP on certain boxes, and that Ci
isco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
>>
>> Robert VanOrmer wrote:
>>> Verizon: IPv6!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We do have a IPv6 transport from Verizon, granted. (1) good luck
>> globally
>>
TJ wrote:
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of David Freedman
And what, prey tell is wrong with "/126 on point to point links", you want
to use SLAAC between routers?
Nothing is wrong, per se. It certainly w
> My feeling is based on two things:
> I don't like the idea of vendors/providers ignoring an RFC just because.
> And note the RFC in question leaves no wiggle room here.
Please cite chapter and verse. As long as you use static IPv6
addresses, /126 is fine. No, a /126 address does *not* ha
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:04 AM
> To: Robert VanOrmer
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco
At 15:36 29/07/2009 -0300, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Hank,
Any news on what exactly was EOL'ed ?
I think it was a mistake on their part.
-Hank
Rubens
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> I just got this product alert from Cisco:
>
>> From: cisconotificationserv...@cisco
Hank,
Any news on what exactly was EOL'ed ?
Rubens
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> I just got this product alert from Cisco:
>
>> From: cisconotificationserv...@cisco.com
>> To: h...@efes.iucc.ac.il
>> Subject: Cisco Notification Alert -Alerts_Daily-07/28/2009 07:3
Robert VanOrmer wrote:
> Verizon: IPv6!
>
>
>
> We do have a IPv6 transport from Verizon, granted. (1) good luck globally
> routing your /48 outside of VZB land, they won't do it unless your providing
> a /32, and if you have been delegated any address space from an RIR, (2)
> good luck getting
>-Original Message-
>From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
>boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of David Freedman
>> Good point ... in fact, we had NTT/Verio for a bit. Wish we still did
>> (even if they were doing the whole "/126 on point to point links" think).
>> (I
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:47:15PM -0400, Eric Van Tol wrote:
> Last time I looked into it with Verio, they wanted close to $50/Meg on
> a 5M commit, plus an additional MRC of $500 for IPv6.
Which doesn't really make very much sense, indeed.
All our upstreams treat bits as bits, no matter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Good point ... in fact, we had NTT/Verio for a bit. Wish we still did (even
> if they were doing the whole "/126 on point to point links" think).
> (I meant to include that some carriers do fully offer IPv6 today, but
> somehow edited that out ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Lockhart [mailto:si...@slimey.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:26 PM
> To: Eric Van Tol
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
>
>
> We've been running IPv6 with
>> And therein lies the rub. The objection was to "never be adopted" ...
>> I know several of the above (and other large carriers you omitted)
>> have "started deploying it", but "started deployment" != "commercially
>> available".
>> (i.e. - not "easy to request". And for today, I totally agree
On Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 12:11:59PM -0400, Eric Van Tol wrote:
> This is true, but they are the only provider that we have run up against that
> actually charges *extra* for v6, at outrageous per-meg rates. Last quote I
> got was two years ago, so perhaps things have changed.
We've been running IPv
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:47 AM
> To: TJ
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:32:24AM -0400, TJ wrote:
> >Verio: IPv6!
>
> And therein lies the rub. The objection was to "never be adopted" ...
> I know several of the above (and other large carriers you omitted) have
> "started deploying it", but "started deployment" != "commercially
> availa
:26 -0400
From: Eric Van Tol
To: "'TJ'" , "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net"
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
Message-ID:
<2c05e949e19a9146af7bdf9d44085b863541d03...@exchange.aoihq.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=
>-Original Message-
>From: Eric Van Tol [mailto:e...@atlantech.net]
>> >> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Justin Shore
>> >> IPv6 was just a fad and would never be adopted in the US.
>> >Sadly, he's not too far off on this one.
>> Totally disagree, but I might also be biased ... in
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of TJ
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:09 AM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
>
&g
ilto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of TJ
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:09 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
>From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
>boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Eric Van Tol
>
>From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
>boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Eric Van Tol
>> From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
>> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Justin Shore
>>
>> IPv6 was just a fad and would never be adopted in the US.
>Sadly,
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Justin Shore
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:00 PM
> To: Ivan Pepelnjak
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; 'Hank Nussbacher'
> Su
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:59:46 am Justin Shore wrote:
> According to a Pannaway SE who visited us a few years
> ago, he'd seen SPs many times our size who used static
> routes for everything. He said we weren't big enough to
> need a routing protocol. Of course he also said that our
> pipes
You are forgetting NLSP (Novell Link State Protocol) designed to
eliminate RIP/SAP adverts But IPX had a lot of advantages large address
space, local network autoconfiguration, anti-spoofing, service
autolocation
Jeff Kell wrote:
Justin Shore wrote:
According to a Pannaway SE who visit
Justin Shore wrote:
> According to a Pannaway SE who visited us a few years ago, he'd seen
> SPs many times our size who used static routes for everything.
We could encapsulate it all in IPX, and yank those Netware servers out
of surplus to handle the routing. Bring back RIPs and SAPs...
Or we
According to a Pannaway SE who visited us a few years ago, he'd seen SPs
many times our size who used static routes for everything. He said we
weren't big enough to need a routing protocol. Of course he also said
that our pipes weren't saturated so we didn't need QoS and that IPv6 was
just a
gt; To: Hank Nussbacher
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
>
> Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> > I just got this product alert from Cisco:
> >
> >> From: cisconotificationserv...@cisco.com
> >> To: h...@
EIGRP...
Ducks and runs for cover
Justin Shore wrote:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I just got this product alert from Cisco:
From: cisconotificationserv...@cisco.com
To: h...@efes.iucc.ac.il
Subject: Cisco Notification Alert -Alerts_Daily-07/28/2009 07:38 GMT
Cisco Notification Service A
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I just got this product alert from Cisco:
From: cisconotificationserv...@cisco.com
To: h...@efes.iucc.ac.il
Subject: Cisco Notification Alert -Alerts_Daily-07/28/2009 07:38 GMT
Cisco Notification Service Alert:
Cisco Notification Alert -Alerts_Daily-07/28/2009 07:38 GM
ODR perhaps? Or maybe OER (that's one letter higher anyway...)
;)
-David
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> I just got this product alert from Cisco:
>>From: cisconotificationserv...@cisco.com
>>To: h...@efes.iucc.ac.il
>>Subject: Cisco Notification Alert -Alerts_Daily-07/28/2009 07:38 GMT
>>
>>
>>Cisc
I just got this product alert from Cisco:
From: cisconotificationserv...@cisco.com
To: h...@efes.iucc.ac.il
Subject: Cisco Notification Alert -Alerts_Daily-07/28/2009 07:38 GMT
Cisco Notification Service Alert:
Cisco Notification Alert -Alerts_Daily-07/28/2009 07:38 GMT
End-of-Sale and End-o
38 matches
Mail list logo
