ARIN thanks those community members who participated in the recent
ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey. kc claffy presented an analysis of
the survey results earlier this week during ARIN XXI in Denver, Co. You
will find the link to this presentation on ARIN's IPv6 wiki at:
www.getipv
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Adam Armstrong wrote:
> Joel Snyder wrote:
> > We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6
> > for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will
> > give/sell tunnels to other ISPs?
> Are there any EU ISP
Joel Snyder wrote:
We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6
for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will
give/sell tunnels to other ISPs?
Are there any EU ISPs doing IPv6 BGP peering/freebie transit-ish via
tunnels?
I'm trying to do some te
ARIN wishes to thank the 300+ people who completed the IPv6 survey.
CAIDA will analyze the results and present them on 7 April during the
ARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting in Denver. The results will be posted on
the ARIN website in the IPv6 Information Center and on the IPv6 wiki at
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 03:44:14PM -0400, Joel Snyder wrote:
> We have a UUnet link and a secondary provider. The secondary provider
> has no IPv6 facilities. UUnet (er, Verizon Business) has IPv6 clue, but
> there is an impenetrable wall between the customer and the clue which
t, use this
great invention called email to contact us, if you still have questions
about things, that is why that page is there, clearly people are scared
by it and don't dare to ask...
As you might guess, our IPv6 traffic load is estimated to be between
"zero" and "un
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Kevin Day wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Joel Snyder wrote:
> >
> > We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6
> > for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/
> > sell tunnels to other IS
at's still happening. If your
use is really small, we've given some free "tunnels as customers" to a
few ISPs, but I don't know if the level of support I'm offering is
really what you're looking for either.
I can vouch that Sprint is still offering IPv6 with BGP o
On Mar 22, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Joel Snyder wrote:
We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6
for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/
sell tunnels to other ISPs?
Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be problematic, so I&#
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Joel Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6 for
> customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/sell
> tunnels to other ISPs?
>
> Experimentation with Si
Hello. I looked through the recent archives and didn't see this
question addressed, so please excuse me if it has been beaten to death
or is considered off-topic.
We have a UUnet link and a secondary provider. The secondary provider
has no IPv6 facilities. UUnet (er, Verizon Bus
> Still trying to understand deployment scenarios for nat-pt.
enterprise
> native-v6 + v4-nat (as outlined in Michael Sinatra's lightning talk)
i am not unhappy with ms's preso except that enterprise keeps whining
about 1918 conflicts
> and Alain Durand's v4v6v4 seem more likely deployment can
> From: Jerry Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:06:24 -0400
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Patrick/NANOG, see list of sites below to get information on IPV6
> transitions. When you go to www.cio.gov you can type in ipv6 in the
> sear
Randy Bush wrote:
And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
do you think
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
I'm looking for documentation on how the US Government IPv6 mandate affects
associated agencies--e.g. healthcare providers, non-profits, or any company
that depends on US Gvt. funding, record keeping, or financial reimbursement for
services rendered (e.g
Patrick/NANOG, see list of sites below to get information on IPV6
transitions. When you go to www.cio.gov you can type in ipv6 in the
search bar to get more information. When the USG migrates to IPv6
those agencies working with them will have to migrate or take one of
the approaches
I'm looking for documentation on how the US Government IPv6 mandate affects
associated agencies--e.g. healthcare providers, non-profits, or any company
that depends on US Gvt. funding, record keeping, or financial reimbursement for
services rendered (e.g. via Medicare).
Over the past 5
Nathan Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?
>>
>> From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and
>> doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just abo
lly given this Soekris hardware away to several
> ISPs here in New Zealand, sponsored by InternetNZ.
One wonders if there is any organization in the USA that
might sponsor similar giveaways to ISPs. Just how much importance
does the Federal government attach to IPv6 transition?
Has anyone ta
with - that is, assuming they give their engineers
time to
even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word:
pragmatic.
Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?
From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and
doesn
> And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
> to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
> this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
do you think it will scale well?
Randy Bush wrote:
I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.
by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had
the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked we
> I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
> might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.
by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had
the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked well.
randy
rs "engineering a solution" that the various parts of "the
> > business" agree with - that is, assuming they give their engineers time to
> > even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word: pragmatic.
>
> Perhaps you could integrate your work with a
Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-deal-with bundle, that means you can plug
> it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of config, instead of spending
> the next 3 years "engineering a solution" that the various parts of "the
> business" agree with - that is, assum
and 6to4 relay
should first understand the capacity issues before buying a
little embedded box to stick in their network.
The ARIN IPv6 wiki has this page
<http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs>
which not only gives you a number of options for setting up 6to4 and
Teredo relays
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Abley wrote:
| I'm sure for many small networks a Soekris box would do fine. For the
| record, FreeBSD also runs on more capable hardware.
Can attest to that. I have picked up Nathan's handywork and used it on
other hardware. some work is neede
As a reminder to those of you that have not participated in the IPv6 survey.
The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), in cooperation with
the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), is
conducting a survey to gather data regarding the current and future use
of
On 17-Mar-2008, at 06:07, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you
don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there
are more v6 users on those two than there are on native
v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pr
sues before buying a
little embedded box to stick in their network.
The ARIN IPv6 wiki has this page
<http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs>
which not only gives you a number of options for setting up 6to4 and
Teredo relays, it also points you to documents which des
My understanding of the mandate is that they (the Department and Agencies)
demonstrate passing IPv6 traffic on their backbone from one system out to their
backbone and back to another system.
A number of agencies, if I remember the number of about 30 have IPv6
allocations. IRS has
On 15/03/2008, at 7:19 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
I have another related question:
Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
circumstances if
No, and no. Shouldn't be a surprise. ("all" is the dealbreaker, certain
agencies are on the ball, but most are barely experimenting).
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Glen Kent wrote:
:
:Hi,
:
:I was just reading
:http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
:so
Hi,
I was just reading
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the
target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move
their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here. Are
> > Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
> > Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
> Looked at the manual, the only thing I could find regarding
> IPv6 connectivity was an option
You need the January 11 2008 firmware (or newer) to do IPv6.
6to4 works fine but there is a bug with NAT-PT at pres
> I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living
> that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or
> faster than IPv4, doing
> so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is
> lacking.
> What's worse, the vendors aren't
Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R would like to recall the message, "cost of dual-stack vs
cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]".
ck vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6
> on SOHO routers?]
>
>
> Jamie,
>
> On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> > MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
>
> The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that
> IPv
Joel:
Besides the CM and CMTS itself, can the CPE attached to the CM use IPv6 if
the CMTS has the right code to handle IPv6-based DHCP relay? To be clear,
even if the CMTS doesn't have DOCSIS 3.0 support? Standing from a distance,
I don't see why IPv6 on the routing piece of the C
> From: David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:48:43 -0700
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Jamie,
>
> On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> > MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
>
>
David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they
> had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
>
> Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
> Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
>
> No idea how well the
FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they
had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
No idea how well they support IPv6...
Regards,
-drc
I have an 877m (no wireless):
Vlan1 has an ipv6 address and and ipv6 nd prefix.
All the devices plugged into the ethernet ports find out about IPv6 just
peachy.
"c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.T1.bin"
(Caveat: I'm running native dual stack over PPPoE because I can make
th
> -Original Message-
> From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:49 PM
> To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> Cc: Mohacsi Janos; Matthew Moyle-Croft; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired.
That workaround does not work on the models with the
> >
> The IPv6 "support" on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's
> not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices.
> But
> it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan
> to
> tunnel to.
>
>
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We
tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My
colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices
they have
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Conrad wrote:
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is
still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google serves up is
accessible via IPv6? I might suggest
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google
is still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google
serves up is accessible via IPv6? I might suggest reviewing http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress
Randy,
actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be
demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do
not
care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back.
I agree. What I meant was that customers will demand content and
since that content is
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will r
#x27; v6 window dressing
to be compliant with US gov't contracts and so on which will match up
with the OMB [unfunded] mandate to be IPv6 compatible by this june.
As for the SOHO, not sure if anything other the next chip revision and
firmware are needed. Besides, will they be NAT boxen wit
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is
> _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
> chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
>
>> and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
> I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and
> Europe are running IPv6 right now? I'm aware, for example, that NTT is
> using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal tra
At 9:48 AM -0700 3/13/08, David Conrad wrote:
> What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in
> the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6.
> Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to
Jamie,
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that IPv6 is
actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have
shown). There are lots of bits
--- On Thu, 3/13/08, Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be
> running IPv4 in 20
> years. A two decade transition period just does not fit
> this industry's
> history.
To be fair, I've encourntered an awful lot of SNA which is still out there,
;recurring' part is the real killer.
This is why any ISP that has not moved their core network
over to MPLS, really needs to take a serious look at doing
so now. If you do this then you only really need to support
IPv6 on your edge routers (MPLS PE) which are used to connect
IPv6 customers.
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently. The
core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled everywhere,
and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now. The US
Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the year. The
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Pekka Savola
wrote:
> Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of
> deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious
> how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are
>
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
money off IPv4. We're already well into this state.
2) Substantially all (> 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has
other transition mechanisms in place.
Who has t
why you think the cost of running dual stack is
> higher than the cost of spending time&money on beind on the bleeding
> edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future
> customers still wedded to the older IP protocol?
You are mixing stages of adoption. The Internet w
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the "extra
recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every
customer that dials in" as being far greater than any technology
costs in either single-stack scenario. The 'recu
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
> >Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5
> >year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 su
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
The only ADSL one listed "Billion 7402R2" doesn't _actually_ do IPv6
yet, but it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to
magically turn on IPv6 to them one day.
Hi MMC,
Yo
Mark Newton wrote:
Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck.
I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out
of the box.
Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6.
Your cable provider will have to upgrade their
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
heard this posite
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
The only ADSL one listed "Billion 7402R2" doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but
it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically
turn on IPv6 to them one
nd am running
dual stack natively at home. But I'm not a typical customer.
But really, we need to start seeing some CPE, even in beta form, so we
can start working through how a transition to IPv6 might work.
(eg. customer local networks, SIP for VOIP, stateful firewalls (given
the ant
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells
consumer CPE said "Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature
that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you
ANOTHER CPE to rep
The only ADSL one listed "Billion 7402R2" doesn't _actually_ do IPv6
yet, but it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to
magically turn on IPv6 to them one day.
The only IPv6 ADSL router I'm aware o
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Bulk - iNAME
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:06 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an "Emerging Communi
Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too:
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Bulk - iNAME
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:06 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 on
I must be blind, but I don't recognize any brands there that support IPv6
(besides the Apple Airport). I see the Linksys WRT54G, but I don't know
where they find the validation for IPv6 support, unless they mean DD-WRT.
Based on all the responses I received on and off list, it appear
ere are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6,
pointing to
Asia specifically.
Well, of *course* you're more likely to find such SOHO routers in
markets where
a SOHO router owner might actually be able to use the feature. But
in most
parts of the US, IPv6 support in a SOHO router is ri
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 CDT, Frank Bulk - iNAME said:
> Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
>
> I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor
> stated that there are SOHO routers that natively
price of those features. Then
offset that with the decrease in silicon size when you add both together
with smaller size lines and transistors on the chips, I would project
SOHO prices of 250 - 350 $ US to start with for v4 & v6 and dropping
from there.
OpenWRT which actually supports
3/12/2008 4:06 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, point
Frank,
Juniper Networks Does support IPv6 in J-Series Routers and SSG Firewalls:
http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/j_series_services_routers/
http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/ex_series/index.html
http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/firewall_slash_ipsec_vpn
ated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
> Asia specifically.
>
Yes, there are many. Take a look at www.ipv6-to-standard.org
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Frank Bulk - iNAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 -0500
> Para:
> Asunto: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
>
>
> Slightly
On Mar 12, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6,
<http://s
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
> Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
> be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
> heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but h
On 12-Mar-2008, at 16:06, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6,
pointing to
As
Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do Linksys,
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have s
The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), in cooperation with
the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), is
conducting a survey to gather data regarding the current and future use
of IPv6 throughout the ARIN Region. For a complete list of countries go
to: http
With the official deployment of IPv6 addresses for the
root servers, F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET IPv6 address changed.
The old address, 2001:500::1035, is no longer valid and
will be turn off at some point. The new address is
2001:500:2f::f.
This will
On 4-Feb-2008, at 00:19, Scott Morris wrote:
You mean do you have to express it in hex?
There are two related things here: (a) the ability to represent a 32-
bit word in an IPv6 address in the form of a dotted-quad, and (b) the
legitimacy of an IPv6 address of the form ::A.B.C.D, where
snort bsd
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:10 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Aggregation for IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space
Hi all:
With IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space, could I aggregate the address
space?
say 192.168.0.0/16 become ::192.168/112? or It must be converted to native
IP
in the most recent architecture, rfc 4291, that was deprecated. The
exact statement is
2.5.5.1. IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address
The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" was defined to assist in the IPv6
transition. The format of the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address&qu
Hi all:
With IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space, could I aggregate the address space?
say 192.168.0.0/16 become ::192.168/112? or It must be converted to native IPv6
address space?
Just wondering,
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au
On Feb 2, 2008 6:24 PM, Thomas Kühne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another factor is that with IPv4, you need to be pragmatic, because if
> > you don't, you have no connectivity. With IPv6, you can impose
> > arbitrary restrictions as much as you want, because
a list of
the resources that have some form of IPv6 brokenness, so that those of
us who would actually like to provide our information resources over
both IPv4 and IPv6 can get to work on fixing it.
I personally am concerned that there are some islands of poor v6
connectivity out there t
ctory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global
# community of volunteer editors.
A DMOZ dump is the complete data set including directory structure, links and
descriptions. I've use this source because other lists are either too small or
contain a lot of spam.
> >
On 2 feb 2008, at 11:42, Thomas Kühne wrote:
I took a DMOZ[1] dump
What's a DMOZ dump?
33.4% of all services that advertised IPv6 failed to deliver or in
other words the IPv6 failure rate is ten times the NS failure rate.
"failing to deliver" is not necessarily a failure c
I took a DMOZ[1] dump, extracted all unique domain-name port combinations
and checked their IPv6 connectivity.
3 388 012 : 100.000% : total
3 260 296 : 96.230% : IPv4 only
122 560 : 3.620% : bad NS
3 372 : 0.100% : IPv6 working
1 694 : 0.050% : broken or "fake" IPv
r specific
implementation.
Thanks all
- Original Message
From: Scott Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; snort bsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January, 2008 12:36:55 PM
Subject: RE: I
ge-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik
Nordmark
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:44 PM
To: snort bsd
Cc: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp
Subject: Re: IPv6 questions
snort bsd wrote:
> Never mind
>
> it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this?
I've
snort bsd wrote:
Never mind
it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this?
I've never seen an IPv6 RFC specify to put the VLAN number in the
link-local address.
Thus this must be an (odd) choice made by some implementation. Perhaps
the implementation somehow requires that all the
1 - 100 of 2221 matches
Mail list logo
