Some months ago I already circulated in this list instructions that I've
provided in other IPv6 related exploder for doing so ...
Introduction to 6to4
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/2007/61.html
Configuring 6to4 Relay in Cisco
For a production service, I will never use dual naming for IPv4 and IPv6, is
ridiculous ask the users to understand if they want to use one or the other
to use a different name. For a testing, not an issue.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately, Juniper doesn't support 6to4, only in Netscreen boxes. This
is ridiculous and I already asked Juniper several times about this ..., but
never got a positive feedback about when it will be supported.
Regards,
Jordi
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha:
There is something not correct here ... Proto-41 is supported by many boxes,
even NAT boxes, I guess by mistake from de vendor/implementation ...
Basically many boxes just understand TCP and UDP and they decide to
pass-thru other unknown protocols, instead of discarding them.
I've document that
On 24/09/2007, at 10:46 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
There is something not correct here ... Proto-41 is supported by
many boxes,
even NAT boxes, I guess by mistake from de vendor/implementation ...
Basically many boxes just understand TCP and UDP and they decide to
pass-thru other
On 20/09/2007, at 4:08 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
location would be enough. If I had some old 7200s lying around
I'd use those, in locations where replacing drives isn't a huge
deal a BSD box (Linux if you insist) would
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:35:12 +1200, Nathan Ward said:
Probably doesn't work so well if you have 6k people behind the same
NAT, and they all try and use proto-41, though.
If you have 6,000 people behind a single NAT, proto-41 is probably the
least of your concerns, and Randy Bush may or may
On 24/09/2007, at 11:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:35:12 +1200, Nathan Ward said:
Probably doesn't work so well if you have 6k people behind the same
NAT, and they all try and use proto-41, though.
If you have 6,000 people behind a single NAT, proto-41 is probably
Yes, that's clear, I was assuming we are talking about end boxes such as a
CPE.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Nathan Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:35:12 +1200
Para: NANOG nanog@merit.edu
Asunto: Re: Going dual-stack, how do apps behave and what to
Here is a TeleGeography news article worth a quick read:
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=19783email=html
It appears that that article assumes that capacity will not be increased by
WDM products...have those that been applied on those links already reached
the cables'
On 24-sep-2007, at 13:55, Nathan Ward wrote:
The other thing to note - 6to4 kicks in on Vista if it has a non-
RFC1918 IPv4 address, so we're talking about people NATing large
numbers of non-RFC1918 space. Regardless of how crazy they might
seem, these networks exist
[...]
when those
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Yes, that's clear, I was assuming we are talking about end boxes such as a
CPE.
You'd be surprised how many Cisco 827's there are out there in strange
places without a sane NAT config (with all the 12.4T NAT twiddles set
appropriately.)
Max
[michael dillon]
And the other cable, which Google is involved in, is connecting
the USA and Australia, a country that has always had connectivity
issues, especially pricing issues. This has led to a much higher
use of web proxies in Australia to reduce international traffic
levels and this
Has anyone calculated what the cost of doing this correctly once vs the
ongoing support/SLA/etc issues of repairing it when it goes boom is? I've
gotta believe that for 90% of the situations where diverse routes exist, just
being used as dual linear paths, its cheaper in the long term to do it
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:41:12 +0200
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately, Juniper doesn't support 6to4, only in Netscreen boxes. This
is ridiculous and I already asked Juniper several times about this ..., but
never got a positive
Here is a TeleGeography news article worth a quick read:
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=19783email=html
It appears that that article assumes that capacity will not be increased by
WDM products...have those that been applied on those links already reached
the cables'
Make sense what you said, I'm just pretty sure that eventually they'll come
up with a way to put 100 to 500 waves on it.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Rod Beck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
17 matches
Mail list logo
