On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
> On 8/7/05 4:54 PM, "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, William Warren wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I think i did not make myself clear. The corrections off-list are
> >> valid..:) However the modems are accessed
On 8/7/05 4:54 PM, "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, William Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> I think i did not make myself clear. The corrections off-list are
>> valid..:) However the modems are accessed by the providers using
>> RFC1918 space and not public IP
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:04:21PM -0700, Peter Boothe wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
Hi Peter,
> Everything can break. We want to know what will break less.
>
> http://soy.dyndns.org/~peter/projects/research/anycast/nanog/
> So, since Daniel Karrenberg showed that ther
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, William Warren wrote:
>
> I think i did not make myself clear. The corrections off-list are
> valid..:) However the modems are accessed by the providers using
> RFC1918 space and not public IP space. This is true it does not mean
and there was a mention at IETF by Alian of
I think i did not make myself clear. The corrections off-list are
valid..:) However the modems are accessed by the providers using
RFC1918 space and not public IP space. This is true it does not mean
they are natting the users..however they are using large amounts of
RFC1918 space to eithe
Actually the cable modems and Dsl modems usually have a 10.x address
they are used by the ISP's to access their internal firware. Also on
traces that I have done on both cable and dsl the first hop is
invariably a RFC1918 address.
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t>,
On 6-aug-2005, at 23:58, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
how would you know if
people who had dualstack systems were trying to get and
failing?
Run statistics off some selected recursive resolvers? Filter out
spammers and other abuse first to make them more accurate.
Ok, perhaps off y
--On August 6, 2005 6:56:27 PM + "Christopher L. Morrow"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a good email over all explaining more parts of the pie :) sweet!
Thanks... I try to add something to the threads when I weigh in...
<..>
ok, good... now in 5 years when there are 'many more' v6 us
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Petri Helenius wrote:
>
> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> >
> >This arguement we (mci/uunet) used/use as well: "not enough demand to do
> >any v6, put at bottom of list"... (until recently atleast it still flew as
> >an answer) How would you know if you had demand? how would
On 6-aug-2005, at 21:56, Randy Bush wrote:
i.e. how much will doing v6 add to the lb company's income?
Business is so much easier when it comes with guarantees about the
future.
I.e. sometimes you need to invest in new technology without immediate
clear benefits to remain relevant in th
> without immediate needs and immediate testing/work I doubt vendors will
> push in this new feature :( I may be cynical though...
s;immediate testing/work;increased sales;
i.e. how much will doing v6 add to the lb company's income?
randy
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
This arguement we (mci/uunet) used/use as well: "not enough demand to do
any v6, put at bottom of list"... (until recently atleast it still flew as
an answer) How would you know if you had demand? how would you know if
people who had dualstack systems were trying t
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/4/05 6:49 PM, "Steve Feldman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> I meant to ask this at a nanog or this IETF... why don't some of the
> >
> > - There are (perceived to be) more important things to spend
> > our limited resources on.
>
a good email over all explaining more parts of the pie :) sweet!
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:
>
> --On August 5, 2005 11:13:13 AM +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's a huge knock-on-effect on all manner of things that you might not
> expect to need to
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sabri Berisha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no
> > longer an option for DNS.
>
> Erm, bollocks.
>
> Just because a few nameservers are anycasted doesn't mean that the
> vast major
Oh how I relish the firebomb email while on vacation trick :)
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 5-aug-2005, at 10:59, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's
> >> not an
> >> option to consider approaching connectivity supplie
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> Randy Bush wrote:
> >>Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
> >>option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
> > could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
> >
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or are they there for
> > other reasons (global lb for content close to customers, regionalized
> > content) perhaps reasons which would matter 'less' in an initial
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:45:13 -, Paul Vixie said:
> disagreed. (because DNSSEC is coming.)
The operational question is, of course, whether we need to worry about
allocating
resources for deploying DNSSEC before or after IPv6. ;)
pgpbo8XS6qCho.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Iljitsch van Beijnum) writes:
> On 5-aug-2005, at 15:55, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > It is of course possible to construct networks through which TCP
> > behaves very poorly with anycasted services. This does not mean that
> > TCP is fundamentally incompatible with anycast.
>
> It
On 5-aug-2005, at 15:55, Joe Abley wrote:
It is of course possible to construct networks through which TCP
behaves very poorly with anycasted services. This does not mean
that TCP is fundamentally incompatible with anycast.
It does mean that if people want to anycast services that run over
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 06:25:00PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> But we could trade putting content on V6 for them if they make their
> network do multicast for us.
>
> Deal?
IPv6 multicast with embedded RP? Deal!
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROT
* Iljitsch van Beijnum:
> Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be
> load balanced by putting a good number of records in the DNS?
This doesn't work for most dynamic content because it lacks session
affinity.
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:17:55PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
> Why do so many v6 folks fill their arguments with notes of alarmism? Why
> don't we just make an orderly migration when it is called for, rather than
> using hyperbole to scare people?
I rather infer, Daniel, that the issue is "how
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:10:46AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> > With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
> > option for DNS.
>
> Bzzzt. Try again.
Naw; c'mon, guys: we did this one *last* month; I still
> Why do so many v6 folks fill their arguments with notes of alarmism?
old bad habits. the sky has been falling for a decade now.
the problem is it makes it hard to separate signal from noise.
e.g. after many years of telling us 3gpp was about to be a major
address space eater, we stopped list
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:17:55 EDT, Daniel Golding said:
> Why do so many v6 folks fill their arguments with notes of alarmism? Why
> don't we just make an orderly migration when it is called for, rather than
> using hyperbole to scare people?
We tried that a few years ago. Nobody moved. So we com
> Why should content providers be at all interested in driving v6 usage?
Only if there are people on V6 that can't get to our V4 services,
otherwise we're just doing it for the good of the net
> They are interested in meeting demand, innovating, collecting
> ad revenue, etc. The ROI to the given
On 8/4/05 6:49 PM, "Steve Feldman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I meant to ask this at a nanog or this IETF... why don't some of the
>> larger content providers (google, msn, yahoo, to name 3 examples) put
>> records in for their maint content pieces? why don't they get v6
>> connecti
--On August 5, 2005 12:50:08 PM +0200 Sabri Berisha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:05:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure how much room additional records take up, but I
think it's a little under 30 bytes. At this rate, there is no way
yo
On 8/4/05 4:46 PM, "Daniel Roesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Famous last words when driving down a long road towards a firm wall of
> concrete. You want to rush then? Do you wait for the pain to fully
> extend? I prefer orderly, planned, concious migrations, not a state of
> "uhm, we cannot
--On August 5, 2005 11:13:13 AM +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be load
balanced by putting a good number of records in the DNS? Since most
IPv6-capable browsers have decent support for trying mult
On 5 Aug 2005, at 07:54, Sabri Berisha wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:10:46AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no
longer an
option for DNS.
Bzzzt. Try again.
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
> > Creating a seperate instance or path though all that for IPv6 is probably
> > going to be hard if it is all setup for everything to go one way.
>
> I know people who have set up such things using reverse proxies (listen on v6
> for query, relay request to
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:51:53AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sabri Berisha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no
> > longer an option for DNS.
>
> Erm, bollocks.
>
> Just because a few nameservers are anycasted doesn't me
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:10:46AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> > With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
> > option for DNS.
>
> Bzzzt. Try again.
/--[cabernet]--[merlot]--[ri
Sabri Berisha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no
> longer an option for DNS.
Erm, bollocks.
Just because a few nameservers are anycasted doesn't mean that the
vast majority of non-anycasted servers may not use TCP.
Optimising the co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Jaeggli) wrote:
> >With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
> >option for DNS.
>
> oddly enough there's been some research on this subject. you might not in
> fact be able to conclude that if your routing is sufficiently stable.
Actually,
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
option for DNS.
oddly enough there's been some research on this subject. you might not in
fact be able to conclude that if your routing
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:05:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure how much room additional records take up, but I
think it's a little under 30 bytes. At this rate, there is no way
you're going to run out of 512 bytes with le
Daniel Roesen wrote:
I would guesstimate about 8 Terabyte per day, judging from the traffic
I saw towards a virgin /21 (1 GByte per day).
/18 attracts 19kbps on average, with day averages between 5 and 37
kilobits per second. That would translate to only 50 to 400 megabytes a day.
So
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
> option for DNS.
Bzzzt. Try again.
-Bill
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:05:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hi,
> I'm not sure how much room additional records take up, but I
> think it's a little under 30 bytes. At this rate, there is no way
> you're going to run out of 512 bytes with less than 10 records.
> Then th
On 5-aug-2005, at 11:33, Bruce Campbell wrote:
Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be
load balanced by putting a good number of records in the DNS?
_Eventually_, DNS packet size and a desire to avoid truncation at
that level would stop you. Nothing stoppin
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Bruce Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be load
balanced by putting a good number
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
LVS which rather a lot of people use for load balancing supports ipv6
and has since 2002
This is what I binned in favour of Redline.
I don't know whether you're balancing HTTP or something else, but if you
are balancing web traffic, then you may get much better performanc
On 5-aug-2005, at 10:59, Randy Bush wrote:
Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's
not an
option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6
enquiries.
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you wo
Randy Bush wrote:
Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth ba
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andy Davidson wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or are they there for
other reasons (global lb for content close to customers, regionalized
content) perhaps reasons which would matter 'less' in an initial v6 world
wher
> Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
> option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
of cou
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or are they there for
other reasons (global lb for content close to customers, regionalized
content) perhaps reasons which would matter 'less' in an initial v6 world
where you were getting the lb's fixed by their v
On 5-aug-2005, at 0:09, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
2. We know cable companies, dsl providers and mobile companies can
use this many IPs, but they generally seem to make use of NAT and
IPv6. If everyone in this category who could justify a /8 applied
and received them we might be in real
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, David Conrad wrote:
>
> ?
>
> % whois -h whois.arin.net 126.0.0.0
>
> OrgName:Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
> ReferralServer: whois://whois.apnic.net
>
> NetRange: 126.0.0.0 - 126.255.255.255
> CIDR: 126.0.0.0/8
> On Aug 5, 2005, at 12:35 AM, Bill Woodc
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Aug 2005, at 21:51, Simon Lyall wrote:
>
> > Creating a seperate instance or path though all that for IPv6 is
> > probably
> > going to be hard if it is all setup for everything to go one way.
>
> I know people who have set up such things using reve
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> % whois -h whois.arin.net 126.0.0.0
> OrgName:Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
> > And this helps them justify a /8 _in the US_ how?
Ah, I'd misunderstood, from all the talk about ARIN, I thought somehow
ARIN was involved.
>> They are one of the largest ISPs in Japan.
> And this helps them justify a /8 _in the US_ how?
dunno. that would probably be hard. which is why they
got it from apnic.
randy
?
% whois -h whois.arin.net 126.0.0.0
OrgName:Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
OrgID: APNIC
Address:PO Box 2131
City: Milton
StateProv: QLD
PostalCode: 4064
Country:AU
ReferralServer: whois://whois.apnic.net
NetRange: 126.0.0.0 - 126.255.255.255
CIDR: 12
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> They are one of the largest ISPs in Japan.
And this helps them justify a /8 _in the US_ how?
-Bill
> The business of the rir's is providing ip addresses to their members. if
> withholding the remaining address space became more important than
> supporting the needs of the community of interest, then they've obviously
> failed their membership.
not for long, as their membership elects/appoin
Hi,
If you can justify a /8, ARIN will allocate one to you (not that
I speak for ARIN or anything, but that's how things work).
Presumably Softbank BB justified the /8 APNIC allocated to them.
I don't know about APNIC, but ARIN's rules are generally
structured to make justification of a /
hi randy!
>indeed, this was a very interesting, if somewhat odd, presentation.
>e.g. the growth graphs had no labels on the y axes:-).
oops. we'll have to tell kousuke-san. :-)
>my impression was that it was essentially a request to extend the
>time of the trial because it was moving more slowl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t>, "Stephen J. Wilcox" writes:
>
>2. We know cable companies, dsl providers and mobile companies can use this ma
>ny
>IPs, but they generally seem to make use of NAT and IPv6. If everyone in this
>category who could justify a /8 applied and received them we might
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, David Conrad wrote:
If you can justify a /8, ARIN will allocate one to you (not that I speak
for ARIN or anything, but that's how things work). Presumably Softbank BB
justified the /8 APNIC allocated to them.
I don't know
> there were discussions about this at the last APNIC OPM.
> details can be found here if you are interested.
> http://www.apnic.net/meetings/19/programme/sigs/ipv6.html
> several ASs participated in this so called
> "large space IPv4 trial usage".
indeed, this was a very interesting, if somewha
On 4 Aug 2005, at 21:51, Simon Lyall wrote:
Creating a seperate instance or path though all that for IPv6 is
probably
going to be hard if it is all setup for everything to go one way.
I know people who have set up such things using reverse proxies (listen
on v6 for query, relay request to
hi
>if i remember correctly, some group in Japan received a /8
>as a transition plan to IPv6... details are hazy.
>sort of like the ARIN thing for experiments, the v4 space
>was/is supposed to be tied to some equivalent v6 space
>and after a period (12 months or so) the v4 space was to be
>retur
i just -know- i should read the rest of this thread before
considering a reply.
if i remember correctly, some group in Japan received a /8
as a transition plan to IPv6... details are hazy.
sort of like the ARIN thing for experiments, the v4 space
was/is supposed to be tied to some equivalent v6
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Steve Feldman wrote:
> > - Most of our content is delivered via load balancer hardware
> > that would also need to support IPv6. Last time I checked,
> > it didn't.
> will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 03:49:48PM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote:
> ...
> > - None of our transit providers appear to provide IPv6 transit.
> > Or if they do, they keep it pretty quiet. (Does UUNET?)
> ...
>
> ISTM that one of their incarnations briefe
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Steve Feldman wrote:
> > I meant to ask this at a nanog or this IETF... why don't some of the
> > larger content providers (google, msn, yahoo, to name 3 examples) put
> > records in for their maint content pieces? why don't they get v6
> > connectivity from their provid
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 03:49:48PM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote:
...
> - None of our transit providers appear to provide IPv6 transit.
> Or if they do, they keep it pretty quiet. (Does UUNET?)
...
ISTM that one of their incarnations briefed this to us as a product,
years ago. [Chris?]
--
Joe
> I meant to ask this at a nanog or this IETF... why don't some of the
> larger content providers (google, msn, yahoo, to name 3 examples) put
> records in for their maint content pieces? why don't they get v6
> connectivity from their providers (that offer such services) ? There are
> starti
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:35:24PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > 2. We know cable companies, dsl providers and mobile companies can use
> > this many IPs, but they generally seem to make use of NAT and IPv6.
>
> So you ask folks to resort to hac
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> Hi David,
> I realise that but:
>
> 1. Softbank BB is not on my radar of likely /8 candidates (of course,
> geography
> may be the reason for that)
perhaps, remember that japan has +100m 'users' on them islands, eh?
"we are planning a dsl netwo
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > So you ask folks to resort to hacks like NAT or force IPv6-only to
> > their users when there is still a lack-of-content problem there?
> > Can you show me your business plan draft for that? I'm curious. :-)
>
> ok, thats not
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> So you ask folks to resort to hacks like NAT or force IPv6-only to their users
> when there is still a lack-of-content problem there? Can you show me your
> business plan draft for that? I'm curious. :-)
ok, thats not what i mean.. i am saying /8,/9 etc
Joe> Are things different in the RIPE region?
Not in this part of the RIPE region (the UK).
Dynamically assigned publicly routable IPv4 addresses are the norm for
residential broadband services, though some providers offer static
addressing as an option, I think a couple of low end services
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:35:24PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> 1. Softbank BB is not on my radar of likely /8 candidates (of course,
> geography may be the reason for that)
Indeed, ASPAC is off most of our radars. :)
Given the size of Softbanks subscriber base, I'm not surprised about the
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:54:07PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> (slightly queasy, imagining the backscatter and worm probe love you'd
> suddenly attract when you advertised your yet-to-be-used /8 for the
> first time)
I would guesstimate about 8 Terabyte per day, judging from the traffic
I saw tow
Steve,
On Aug 4, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
1. Softbank BB is not on my radar of likely /8 candidates (of
course, geography
may be the reason for that)
They are one of the largest ISPs in Japan and Japan (at least certain
parts, like Tokyo and Osaka) is _significantly_ mo
On 4 Aug 2005, at 14:35, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
2. We know cable companies, dsl providers and mobile companies can use
this many
IPs, but they generally seem to make use of NAT and IPv6. If everyone
in this
category who could justify a /8 applied and received them we might be
in real
trou
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I had said elsewhere this was unprecedented but was then pointed at 73.0.0.0/9,
73.128.0.0/10 which is Comcast assigned in April. I'm surprised none of these
assignemtns have shown up on mailing lists..
I suspect this was done on the condition that
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, David Conrad wrote:
If you can justify a /8, ARIN will allocate one to you (not that I speak for
ARIN or anything, but that's how things work). Presumably Softbank BB
justified the /8 APNIC allocated to them.
I don't know about APNIC, but ARIN's rules are generally struc
Hi David,
I realise that but:
1. Softbank BB is not on my radar of likely /8 candidates (of course, geography
may be the reason for that)
2. We know cable companies, dsl providers and mobile companies can use this
many
IPs, but they generally seem to make use of NAT and IPv6. If everyone in
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
i thought the decade of giving class A's to large corporates had long
since passed.. we've got some major network rollout coming up, i need an
extra 16 million IPs, so can i get one?
wtf?
Yahoo BB is one of the largest ISPs in Japan, I saw a sli
Stephen,
If you can justify a /8, ARIN will allocate one to you (not that I
speak for ARIN or anything, but that's how things work). Presumably
Softbank BB justified the /8 APNIC allocated to them.
Rgds,
-drc
On Aug 4, 2005, at 11:07 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Ok, back up a second..
Ok, back up a second
126/8 Jan 05 APNIC (whois.apnic.net)
inetnum: 126.0.0.0 - 126.255.255.255
netname: BBTEC
descr:Japan Nation-wide Network of Softbank BB Corp.
status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE
changed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20050208
i
88 matches
Mail list logo
