Stephen Wilcox wrote:
...
Firstly, all p2p nets use some process to register with the network.
> It is simple to imagine a way to ensure these superpeers are publically
> addressed and let them coordinate the NATted hosts.
e.g. dyndns (no-ip.com) or OpenDHD and other not so wellknown.
Bots v
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:12:28PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
>
> Scott Francis wrote:
> >On 7/29/07, Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ways have been found to drill holes into NAT-routers and firewalls,
> >>but they are working only as long as it is only you who wants to brea
Scott Francis wrote:
On 7/29/07, Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ways have been found to drill holes into NAT-routers and firewalls,
but they are working only as long as it is only you who wants to break
out of the NAT. As soon as the mainstream has only left rfc 1918 addresses
p2p w
On Jul 29, 2007, at 5:02 AM, Peter Dambier wrote:
I am pessimistic. The malware will find its way.
It is port 25 smtp that goes away and takes part of the spam away too.
IPv6:25 will not work, or will not be accepted? There are IPv6
translators that dynamically share IPv4 address space.
On 7/29/07, Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ways have been found to drill holes into NAT-routers and firewalls,
> but they are working only as long as it is only you who wants to break
> out of the NAT. As soon as the mainstream has only left rfc 1918 addresses
> p2p will stop.
really
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:50:10AM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
p2p people will be happy if they can get rid of their tunnels.
With rfc 1918 addresses for all there will be no more
filesharing, voip, spam and troyans.
really? because p2p doesnt work behind NAT, and compu
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:50:10AM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
>
> Petri Helenius wrote:
> >
> >Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >
> >>Now, if you suddenly charge $2.50/mo to have a public IP or $15/mo for
> >>a /28 it does become a consideration to the customer as to if they
> >>_REALLY_ need it
> >>
Petri Helenius wrote:
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
Now, if you suddenly charge $2.50/mo to have a public IP or $15/mo for
a /28 it does become a consideration to the customer as to if they
_REALLY_ need it
Where would this money go to?
To ip-squatters.
Get your allocation now and turn it in
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
Now, if you suddenly charge $2.50/mo to have a public IP or $15/mo for a /28 it
does become a consideration to the customer as to if they _REALLY_ need it
Where would this money go to?
Pete
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:25:51PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
> At 2:01 PM +0100 7/26/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >well, the empirical data which is confirmed here is saying that those 10%
> >are burning most of the v4 addresses and we are not seeing them rollout v6
> >whether they 'need to' or n
--- David Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I dont feel this sort of behaviour is helpful, I can
> understand asking
> for licensing fees for L2VPN/L3VPN technologies
> since these are products
> that service providers can levvy a reasonable charge
> for, but to charge
> for IPv6 routing
At 01:22 PM 7/26/2007, you wrote:
Let us not forget that network vendors are now capitalising on the
requirement to purchase expensive licensing for such features as
native IPv6 routing and 6PE, on their mid to high end kit.
I dont feel this sort of behaviour is helpful, I can understand
ask
At 2:01 PM +0100 7/26/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>well, the empirical data which is confirmed here is saying that those 10% are
>burning most of the v4 addresses and we are not seeing them rollout v6 whether
>they 'need to' or not
Wow... you mean that they're not announcing general IPv6
availab
James R. Cutler wrote:
Cost of operating v4/v6 combined for some time includes, among other
things:
1. Help Desk calls resulting from confused customers wanting
configuration help.
2. Memory for Routing Information for IPv4 plus IPv6.
3. Help Desk calls resulting from errors by confused e
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 06:21:59AM -0400, John Curran wrote:
> At 11:18 AM +0100 7/26/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >
> >um, so thats consistent with what i said.. in fact it implies only a very
> >small number of organisations need to pay close attention and those are the
> >ones best suited to i
At 11:18 AM +0100 7/26/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>
>um, so thats consistent with what i said.. in fact it implies only a very
>small number of organisations need to pay close attention and those are the
>ones best suited to implementing policy changes to ensure their users continue
>to have a g
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 06:15:23PM -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 25-jul-2007, at 6:30, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>
> >I think the combined effect of these things means
> >- we will not be running into a wall at any time
> >- availability of IPs will slowly decrease over time (as cost
> >s
On 25-jul-2007, at 6:30, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
I think the combined effect of these things means
- we will not be running into a wall at any time
- availability of IPs will slowly decrease over time (as cost
slowly increases)
I have to disagree here. 10% of the requests are for 90% of the 1
On 24-jul-2007, at 0:41, Durand, Alain wrote:
1) What is the IPv6 'service'?
For example, is it reasonable to define a 'basic' level
service as web+mail and an 'extended' service as everything else?
Random ideas include for example offering a lower cost
'basic' service with v6 that
> I believe that we'll see extensive use of NAT for client-only
> services (just look at many broadband residential services
> today), but that won't help business customers who want
> a block for the DMZ servers.
think a few million /27s or /29s with publicly accessible services on
one of those
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 10:01:44AM -0400, Chad Oleary wrote:
> DHCPv6 doesn't even hand out addresses.
I wasn't going to say anything because Alain already said something.
But we've gotten this question from at least two other sources in the
last two days who read this and wanted to ask us what t
At 10:04 AM -0500 7/25/07, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>The 73 "Xtra Large" LIRs that consume 79% of ARIN's v4 space today are paying
>no more than USD 0.03 per IP per year. That's not quite zero, but it's close
>enough the effect is the same. Until the cost of v4 space to these folks is
>more th
Thus spake "Adrian Chadd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm not sure what your definition of "really tiny" is, but out here
IPs are a dollar or two each a year from APNIC. I'm sure ARIN's IP
charges aren't $0.00.
The 73 "Xtra Large" LIRs that consume 79% of ARIN's v4 space today are
paying no more than
gards,
Jordi
> De: Stephen Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:41:57 +0100
> Para: John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC:
> Asunto: Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 a
On 25 Jul 2007, at 14:15, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
[...]
Well, you already say you have major ISPs submitting requests every
6 months, and I guess that is your high water mark so everyone else
should be longer (at lease here under RIPE you are supposed to be
allocated space for 2 yrs at a ti
John,
On Jul 25, 2007, at 2:13 PM, John Curran wrote:
I believe that we'll see extensive use of NAT for client-only
services (just look at many broadband residential services
today), but that won't help business customers who want
a block for the DMZ servers.
Well yes. However there are like
At 1:15 PM +0100 7/25/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>I'm not sure there is time for v6 to be ready before companies find different
>ways to manage this. There are many things that need to happen to enable v6
>and I dont think any of them are happening in a big way.
Let's agree on "18mo-4yrs of 'gr
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:18:30AM -0400, John Curran wrote:
> At 1:15 PM +0100 7/25/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >
> >> At present, there's a few years for these folks to switch to IPv6 for
> >> their growth. It requires cooperation from the Internet, in that we
> >> all need to recognize that th
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:21:04PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > Lack of IPv4 addresses will put the brakes on growth of the
> > Internet
> > > which will have a major impact on revenue growth. Before long stock
> > > market analysts are going to be asking tough questions, and
> > C
At 1:15 PM +0100 7/25/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>
>> At present, there's a few years for these folks to switch to IPv6 for
>> their growth. It requires cooperation from the Internet, in that we
>> all need to recognize that there will be IPv6 customers out there soon,
>> and even if you don't pla
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:50:05AM -0400, John Curran wrote:
> At 12:30 PM +0100 7/25/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >Hi John,
> > I fully agree on that.. but I am disagreeing as to the timescales.
> >
> >There is some opinion that when IANA hands out the last of its IP blocks
> >things will change
At 2:02 PM +0200 7/25/07, David Conrad wrote:
>This assumes consumption patterns remain the same which is, I believe, naive.
>In a world where you have to pay non-trivial amounts for address space
>utilization, people will only use the address space they actually need and
>you'll see even more
John,
On Jul 25, 2007, at 1:14 PM, John Curran wrote:
All the existing big businesses can operate with what they already
have, Google and Yahoo are not going to face any sort of crisis
for the foreseeable future. And as I've been saying for a while
and Randy put in his presentation, supply
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:52:19PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>
> > > Lack of IPv4 addresses will put the brakes on growth of the Internet
> > > which will have a major impact on revenue growth. Before long stock
> > > market analysts are going to be
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> > Lack of IPv4 addresses will put the brakes on growth of the Internet
> > which will have a major impact on revenue growth. Before long stock
> > market analysts are going to be asking tough questions, and CEOs are
> > suddenly going to see the IPv6
At 12:30 PM +0100 7/25/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>Hi John,
> I fully agree on that.. but I am disagreeing as to the timescales.
>
>There is some opinion that when IANA hands out the last of its IP blocks
>things will change overnight, and I dont see any reason for that to be the
>case. I think t
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:14:49AM -0400, John Curran wrote:
> At 11:52 AM +0100 7/25/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:34:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> > However, what I'm trying to understand is why the motivation
> >> > to rapidly go from v4 to v6 only? Wh
> > Lack of IPv4 addresses will put the brakes on growth of the
> Internet
> > which will have a major impact on revenue growth. Before long stock
> > market analysts are going to be asking tough questions, and
> CEOs are
> > suddenly going to see the IPv6 light.
>
> What exactly will cease
At 11:52 AM +0100 7/25/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:34:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > However, what I'm trying to understand is why the motivation
>> > to rapidly go from v4 to v6 only? What are the factors I'm
>> > missing in operating v4/v6 combined for som
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:34:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > However, what I'm trying to understand is why the motivation
> > to rapidly go from v4 to v6 only? What are the factors I'm
> > missing in operating v4/v6 combined for some time?
>
> Growth.
>
> Lack of IPv4 addresses wi
You posit that running out of bread (ipv4 address space) encourages
people to bake more bread.
Unfortunately it often makes them scream for bread lines (rationing,
central control, privilege.)
It'd be nice if there were a more positive reason to go ipv6 than
getting out of the bread lines, but
> However, what I'm trying to understand is why the motivation
> to rapidly go from v4 to v6 only? What are the factors I'm
> missing in operating v4/v6 combined for some time?
Growth.
Lack of IPv4 addresses will put the brakes on growth of the Internet
which will have a major impact on revenu
E: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Durand, Alain wrote:
>
> One of the things that is missing IMHO is that there is no clear vision
> of what the IPv6 Internet will/should looks like. Let me focus on the
'look like'... there are mostly ipv4 paths from ea
Cost of operating v4/v6 combined for some time includes, among other things:
1. Help Desk calls resulting from confused customers wanting
configuration help.
2. Memory for Routing Information for IPv4 plus IPv6.
3. Help Desk calls resulting from errors by confused engineers
trying to work b
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Durand, Alain wrote:
>
> One of the things that is missing IMHO is that there is no clear vision
> of what the IPv6 Internet will/should looks like. Let me focus on the
'look like'... there are mostly ipv4 paths from each ipv4 endpoint to each
other ipv4 endpoint (keeping our
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Durand, Alain wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Chad Oleary
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:02 AM
> > To: nanog@merit.edu
> > Subject: Re: An Internet IPv6 Trans
On 7/24/07, Durand, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chad Oleary
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:02 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Pl
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 10:59:34AM -0400, Durand, Alain wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > 1) What is the IPv6 'service'?
> > >For example, is it reasonable to define a 'basic' level
> > >service as web+mail and
> -Original Message-
> From: John Curran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:20 AM
> To: Durand, Alain
> Cc: nanog
> Subject: RE: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
>
> Alain -
>
> Present residential broadband Internet servic
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 1) What is the IPv6 'service'?
> >For example, is it reasonable to define a 'basic' level
> >service as web+mail and an 'extended' service as
> everything else?
> >
>
> actually, for so
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chad Oleary
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:02 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
>
> Personally, I see v6 as something that need
I'm wondering if we should really be considering a "transition" plan
at this point? From what I can see, there will be many IPv4 only
networks around for many years to come. The technology doesn't have an
expiration date. Rather than focusing on "transitioning" every network
from v4 to v6, should
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:41:18AM -0400, Durand, Alain wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Thank you for writing this down, this will help start the discussion.
>
> One of the things that is missing IMHO is that there is no clear vision
> of what the IPv6 Internet will/should looks like. Let me focus on the
Alain -
Present residential broadband Internet service is "provide the
customer with access to/from any public-facing IPv4-based
resource"
Around 2011 (date for discussion purpose only) residential
broadband Internet service is "provide the customer with
access to/from any public-fac
will be difficult to define
any Internet scale transition plan...
My $.02
- Alain.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 11:56 PM
> To: nanog
> Subject: An Internet IPv6 Tr
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/070722.v6-op-reality.pdf
At 10:59 PM -0500 7/23/07, Randy Bush wrote:
>wilbur: we need to fly though the air!
>orville: easy, let's make a machine, and we can call it an "airplane"
>wilbur: that's cute, but HOW WILL IT WORK?
In the references section, you'll find a number of RFC's and ID's
which propose answers on "how w
wilbur: we need to fly though the air!
orville: easy, let's make a machine, and we can call it an "airplane"
wilbur: that's cute, but HOW WILL IT WORK?
Folks -
There's quite a few IPv6 transition technologies, each with its
own camp of supporters based on particular world view of the
hardest & easiest system elements to change. One of the
challenges this poses is that it's very easy to get caught up
in the various transi
59 matches
Mail list logo
