> 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 positiv
>> 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 not be thinking of
> awarding you an Innovative E
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.)
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 net
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
> Asunto: Re: Going dua
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
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 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 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 unkno
aptop via my 3G phone.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Nathan Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:17:24 +1200
Para: NANOG
Asunto: Re: Going dual-stack, how do apps behave and what to do as an
operator (Was: Apple Airport Extreme IPv6 problems?)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:54:11 +0100
> Para:
> Conversación: Going dual-stack, how do apps behave and what to do as an
> operator (Was: Apple Airport Extreme IPv6 problems?)
> Asunto: RE: Going dual-stack, how do apps behave and what to do as an opera
On 21-sep-2007, at 7:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
All applications are supposed to use getaddrinfo() which sorts
these addresses per the above specification, the app should then
connect() to them in order, fail/timeout and try the next one
Since when is a timeout on the Internet ok? Haven't we
>> Since when is a timeout on the Internet ok? Haven't we moved beyond
>> that?
> You mean to say you get 100% connectivity with IPv4?
when i don't i call the noc and open a ticket
randy
On 9/21/07, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >
> >On 9/15/07, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [spam: Check http://www.sixxs.net/misc/toys/ for an IPv6 Toy Gallery :)]
> >>
> >> Somewhat long, hopefully useful content follows...
>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>On 9/15/07, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [spam: Check http://www.sixxs.net/misc/toys/ for an IPv6 Toy Gallery :)]
>>
>> Somewhat long, hopefully useful content follows...
>>
>> Barrett Lyon wrote:
>> [..]
>
>[ clip ]
>
>> Of course when t
On 9/15/07, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [spam: Check http://www.sixxs.net/misc/toys/ for an IPv6 Toy Gallery :)]
>
> Somewhat long, hopefully useful content follows...
>
> Barrett Lyon wrote:
> [..]
[ clip ]
> Of course when there is only a A or only that protocol will be
> u
> > If there's interest I'll hack up a FreeBSD nanobsd image with ipv6
> > support, a routing daemon (whatever people think is good
> enough) and
> > whatever other stuff is "enough" to act as a 6to4 gateway.
> > You too can build diskless core2duo software routers for USD $1k.
>
> What about
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007, Alex Thurlow wrote:
> >How much traffic can a modern intel board with a core 2 duo handle
> >with $EL_GENERIC_UNIX_OS ?
> The PCI-Express bus tops out at 2.5 Gbps I believe, and they (Vyatta
> router salespeople to be specific) say you should be able to reach
> that. At
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> >If there's interest I'll hack up a FreeBSD nanobsd image with ipv6
> >support, a routing daemon (whatever people think is good enough)
> >and whatever other stuff is "enough" to act as a 6to4 gateway.
> >You too can build diskless core2duo software ro
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 be a good choice because they
give you a bigger C
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 be a good choice because they
> give you a bigger CPU for your mo
On 19-sep-2007, at 11:58, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you saying that 6to4 relay servers should be dedicated to that
task?
No, of course not. However, even though today IPv6 traffic is fairly
minimal for pretty much everyone, it has the potential to grow
quickly
On 18-sep-2007, at 23:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:29:38 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
they can't do it in hardware or with decent speed in software) but
there are no cheap(er) Juniper boxes that are suitable for deployment
as a 5 - 200 Mbps tunnel box, in my opinion
> Just stumbled upon this article
http://www.networkworld.com/news/tech/2007/090507-tech-uodate.html
>Suggested here is that Dual Stack is more attractive than tunneling. Is
the advise here based on real life experience or is it a matter of what
is good for the goose may not be good for the gande
> When I wrote my book, I mostly looked at Cisco for this, and
> apart from Cisco to FreeBSD and Linux. The logic is that on a
> Cisco, you can build a good tunnel box (6to4 or manual
> tunnels) on a C7200 or some other box that has a decent CPU
> that can do the tunneling in software. Quite p
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:29:38 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> they can't do it in hardware or with decent speed in software) but
> there are no cheap(er) Juniper boxes that are suitable for deployment
> as a 5 - 200 Mbps tunnel box, in my opinion.
I presume your thinking is that by the time
On 18-sep-2007, at 15:54, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are a couple of gaps. I can find no info on how to set up 6to4
relay services on Juniper routers. Does JUNOS support this at all? If
you know, go to the above page, click on Juniper, and tell us what
needs
to b
> >> - setup a 6to4 relay + route 192.88.99.1 + 2002::/16
> >
> > How?
>
> This is reasonably well documented for a Cisco but here's a
> minimal sample
> config:
Thanks. I used your info, and other sources, to put up a page at
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs which descri
On 16-sep-2007, at 16:46, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- setup a 6to4 relay + route 192.88.99.1 + 2002::/16
How?
Listing 11-7. A Cisco 6to4-to-IPv6 Gateway Configuration
!
interface Loopback2002
ip address 192.88.99.1 255.255.255.255
!
interface Tunnel2002
ipv6 enab
> - setup a 6to4 relay + route 192.88.99.1 + 2002::/16
How?
> - setup a Teredo Server + Relay and make available the
How?
> - and/or the better option IMHO, to keep it in control: setup a
>tunnel broker and provide your users access to that. For instance
>Hexago sells appliances for
On 16-sep-2007, at 15:17, Nathan Ward wrote:
6to4 uses protocol 41 over IP. This doesn't go through NAT
Those statements are both true, but they're unrelated. If your NAT
box knows there is more to IP than TCP and UDP, it's possible that
you can do IPv6-in-IP tunneling in general (protoco
On 16/09/2007, at 8:03 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
- IPv6 native (anything not 2002::/16 + 2003::/32)
- IPv4 native
- IPv6 6to4 (2002::/16)
- IPv6 Teredo (2003::/32
Incase anyone is using this for reference purposes, Jaroen really
means 2001::/32, not 2003::/32.
Teredo was also previously on 3f
On 15-sep-2007, at 22:03, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[spam: Check http://www.sixxs.net/misc/toys/ for an IPv6 Toy
Gallery :)]
Spam: read a good book about IPv6. :-)
The IETF recommendation is that IPv6 is tried before IPv4, BUT
there is
RFC3484 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3484.txt) which gives
[spam: Check http://www.sixxs.net/misc/toys/ for an IPv6 Toy Gallery :)]
Somewhat long, hopefully useful content follows...
Barrett Lyon wrote:
[..]
> The other thought that occurred to me, does FF/Safari/IE have any
> ability to default back to v4 if v6 is not working or behaving badly?
> This
34 matches
Mail list logo
