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
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 break
out of the
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
Where would
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
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
slowly
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
--- 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
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
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 good
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
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 not
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
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
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 will put the
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 some time?
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 to grow
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? What are the
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 there
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 light.
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 asking
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,
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
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 plan on
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
CEOs are
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 overnight,
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 there will be
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
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:41:57 +0100
Para: John Curran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: nanog@merit.edu
Asunto: Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:18:30AM -0400, John Curran wrote:
At 1:15 PM +0100 7/25/07, Stephen
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 USD
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
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
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 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
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
residential
broadband for a minute, I'm fully aware there are other cases,
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
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
-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 needed and desired by
the certain
-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 some of us
-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 service is provide the
customer with access
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 an 'extended'
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 Transition Plan
Personally, I see v6 as something
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
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
: 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 each ipv4 endpoint to each
other
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 revenue
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?
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 will
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/070722.v6-op-reality.pdf
55 matches
Mail list logo
