Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought

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 ISPs doing IPv6 BGP peering/freebie

Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought

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 testing

Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought

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 > assures that

Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought

Joel Snyder wrote: [..] Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be problematic, How so? It is always fun to read that people have 'problems', but it is even funnier then when the person's name isn't even listed in whois.sixxs.net and thus doesn't even have an account, nor am I able to e

Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought

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 ISPs? > > > > Experimentation

Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought

Kevin Day wrote: Hurricane Electric was offering BGP over tunnels at one point, but I don't know if they still are. Sprint made an announcement years ago that they were offering free tunnels with BGP and treated them more or less like customer ports, but I don't know if that's still happenin

Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought

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'd rathe

Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought

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 SixXS.NET has proven to be

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

> > 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 present. If you Google

RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

> 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 spinning the ASICs (which > I'm tol

Recall: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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?]".

RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

wiki: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Conrad > Sent: 13 March 2008 16:49 > To: Jamie Bowden > Cc: North American Network Operators Group > Subject: Re: cost of dual-sta

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

MTS has to require a DOCSIS 3.0 blade and/or CM. Regards, Frank -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:48 AM To: Mark Newton Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers? Mark Ne

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

> 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. > > The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 do

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 they support IPv6... Looked at the manual

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 the LNS do what I wan

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

> -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?

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

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

> > > 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. > > Pete It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 addre

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 IPv

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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 reviewi

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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-rep

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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 avai

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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 request IPv

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 posited -- I had a hard bel

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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 > IPv6. There are alre

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

>> 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 transport > service not c

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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 > deploy the i

Re: cost of dual-stack 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 IPv6 is actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have shown). There are lots of bits

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

--- 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,

RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

> 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 'recurring' part is the real killer.

RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

e, I'd expect a slow but steady uptake across the rest of North America. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:18 AM To: Leo Bicknell Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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 >

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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 the other

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

In a message written 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 m

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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, You might want to contribute

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 CMTS (line

cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

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

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 day. The only IPv

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

Justin M. Streiner wrote: 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 a

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 of, that I can buy in Australi

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

And it looks like the Buffalo WZR-AG300NH claims support, too: http://www.buffalotech.com/files/products/wzr-ag300nh_DS.pdf I don't consider Buffalo a tier 1 or 2 SOHO vendor, but they're still on my top-ten list for SOHO networking vendors. Regards, Frank -Original Message- From: [EMA

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 SOHO ro

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

s, that as far as name brands recognized in the U.S., only Apple makes a SOHO router that support IPv6. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:56 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IP

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

On 13/03/2008, at 11:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 support IPv6, pointing to > Asia specifical

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, John Lee wrote: What I would like to see today is SOHO routers that do not interfere with 6 over 4 transport since my ISP does not offer home DSL termination of v6. Taking the silicon in a SOHO and adding 5 to 10 $ US in cost for v6 and multiple that by 5 to get a retail

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

If history is any guide the last Cisco boxes I worked on supported various flavors of SDLC and pre-SNA IBM comm, DECnet and DECnet LAT, IPX, Burroughs, poll select and the only protocol they do not still support is CorvisNet on twisted pair. Some of these protocols have not seen the light of day

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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/ind

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

I seem to remember something about Earthlink rolling out v6 enabled wifi routers to its customers (linksys with a hacked up firmware that'd create a v6 tunnel between the cpe and an elnk tunnelbroker) .. what happened to that interesting little product? Killed off and the few remaining users gran

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 off-topic, but tangentially related th

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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,

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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 Asia specifically. Do L

Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

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, D-Link, Netgear, etc. h

Re: IPv6 Connectivity Saga (part n+1)

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 IPv4 makes sure > > there is always

Re: IPv6 Connectivity Saga (part n+1)

Thomas Kühne wrote: On Saturday February 2 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 2 feb 2008, at 11:42, Thomas Kühne wrote: I took a DMOZ[1] dump What's a DMOZ dump? DMOZ: http://www.dmoz.org/about.html # The Open Directory Project is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited # directory o

Re: IPv6 Connectivity Saga (part n+1)

On Saturday February 2 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 2 feb 2008, at 11:42, Thomas Kühne wrote: > > I took a DMOZ[1] dump > > What's a DMOZ dump? DMOZ: http://www.dmoz.org/about.html # The Open Directory Project is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited # directory of the Web. It is

Re: IPv6 Connectivity Saga (part n+1)

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 condition, in my

Re: IPv6 questions

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

RE: IPv6 questions

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

Re: IPv6 questions

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 link-l

Re: IPv6 questions

Never mind it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this? Thanks all Dave - Original Message From: snort bsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 28 January, 2008 3:05:59 PM Subject: IPv6 questions Hi All: With link-local IPv6 a

Re: IPv6 tracking assignments (OSS recommendations)

On Jan 4, 2008 1:31 PM, Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Scott Francis wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2008 12:32 PM, Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Anyone have any experience with software that will track both IPv4 and > >> IPv6 assignments in the OSS world? Any recommendations

Re: IPv6 tracking assignments (OSS recommendations)

Scott Francis wrote: On Jan 2, 2008 12:32 PM, Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyone have any experience with software that will track both IPv4 and IPv6 assignments in the OSS world? Any recommendations? we've been using IPPlan recently and have been pretty

Re: IPv6 tracking assignments (OSS recommendations)

On Jan 2, 2008 12:32 PM, Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Anyone have any experience with software that will track both IPv4 and > IPv6 assignments in the OSS world? Any recommendations? we've been using IPPlan recently and have been pretty satisfied with it (

Re: IPv6 firewall support

Have to say, using screenOS 5.4 on our juniper kit and relatively happy. Elsewhere, if you just want a packet filter, v6 ACLs are fine, depending of course whether they are done in hardware or software and if this is appropriate for your application (i.e , ACL in software path is perfectly ap

Re: IPv6 routes, was: How Not to Multihome

On 10/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wouldn't resources still be an issue. Since the address space is so much > larger wouldn't the 235k v6 routes take up more than 4 times the router > memory? Keegan, According to Cisco's product feature pages IPv6 routes take up twice as

Re: IPv6 routes, was: How Not to Multihome

Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/08/2007 07:36:56 PM: > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm really interested to see what happens when we start filling those same > > routers with ipv6 routes. > > Well, IPv6 prefixes will eventually be some number between the total

Re: IPv6 routes, was: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm really interested to see what happens when we start filling those same > routers with ipv6 routes. Well, IPv6 prefixes will eventually be some number between the total number of ASes in use (which represents the number of networks that can affor

Re: IPv6 Information Wiki

On 25-Sep-2007, at 1128, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ARIN has set up a wiki at http://www.getipv6.info to publish information that will help ISPs, large and small in implementing IPv6 and migrating to an IPv6 Internet. It might be worth syncing up with the people wh

Re: IPv6 Information Wiki

[added bcc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that they can have a look at it too from their end etc etc] Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> ARIN has set up a wiki at http://www.getipv6.info to publish information >> that will help ISPs, large and small in implementing IPv6 and

Re: IPv6 Information Wiki

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ARIN has set up a wiki at http://www.getipv6.info to publish information > that will help ISPs, large and small in implementing IPv6 and migrating > to an IPv6 Internet. The unintentionally funny part of this is that the wiki hangs (the redirect to http://www.getip

RE: ipv6/v4 naming nomenclature [Was: Apple Air...]

> >> Don't come up with any other variants. The above form is > what is in > >> general use around the internet and what some people will at least > >> try to use in cases where a DNS label has both an and > A and one > >> of them doesn't work. > Where did the www.ipv6 and www.ipv4 "s

Re: ipv6/v4 naming nomenclature [Was: Apple Air...]

Barrett Lyon wrote: > > On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:30 PM, David Conrad wrote: [..] >> On Sep 18, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> Please please please, for the sake of a semi-'standard', please only use [..] >> What RFC (or other standards publication) is this documented in? > > Where did th

RE: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

ssage- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:25 AM To: John Osmon Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4 On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 MDT, John Osmon said: > > Is anyone out there setting

Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:12:54AM -0400, Jason LeBlanc wrote: > > OT: He probably meant MOP and LAT are not routable, man that brings back > memories. Yeah, I realy did, but my fingers typed 'decnet isn't routable' because that how the folks I worked with at the time described the issue. I wa

Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 MDT, John Osmon said: > > Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for > IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make > sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked > out of it rather easily. We decided to map

Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

On 26-aug-2007, at 7:56, John Osmon wrote: Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked out of it rather easily. Why would you want to do that?

Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

OT: He probably meant MOP and LAT are not routable, man that brings back memories. Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 -0600 From: John Osmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for IPv4 and IPv6? I'm

Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 -0600 > From: John Osmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for > IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make > sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I

Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

John Osmon wrote: Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked out of it rather easily. Years ago, I worked on a academic network where we had a m

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:58:37 -0700 > Para: John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Igor Gashinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Asunto: Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted > >

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: > Asunto: Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted > > What I guess have not been clear on is the fact that loadbalancers for > many people are an integral (and required) part of the *architecture* > (and not just somet

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

william(at)elan.net wrote: . I suppose, but certain places like Mozilla, would be dead in the water without load balancers. Citrix got their act together and shipped 8.0 with v6 vips on the front talking to v4 servers on the backend. While I understand that some place may want to put pol

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, matthew zeier wrote: John Curran wrote: Best of luck with it; load-balancers aren't generally hiding in ISP's backbones and it hasn't been major revenue for the traditional router crowd. Net result is there hasn't been much IPv6 attention in that market... I suppose,

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

John Curran wrote: Best of luck with it; load-balancers aren't generally hiding in ISP's backbones and it hasn't been major revenue for the traditional router crowd. Net result is there hasn't been much IPv6 attention in that market... I suppose, but certain places like Mozilla, would be

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

At 7:16 PM -0400 6/3/07, Igor Gashinsky wrote: >Again, we are working on it, Good to know... >it is much harder then it seems, my views are >my own, I'm not in any way speaking for my employer, ... Best of luck with it; load-balancers aren't generally hiding in ISP's backbones and it hasn't bee

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

What I guess have not been clear on is the fact that loadbalancers for many people are an integral (and required) part of the *architecture* (and not just something u need to distribute load), and as such, are a component that must support v6 for the *service* to then be able to support it (muc

Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

Agree, and in fact, a quick though is that as you may expect *much less* IPv6 traffic today, not having load balancing may not be an issue, and you can always actively measure if the traffic is going high, etc. If the time arrives when the traffic is so high and your preferred vendor doesn't yet

Re: IPv6 Training?

Petri Helenius wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex Rubenstein writes: Does anyone know of any good IPv6 training resources (classroom, or self-guided)? If your router vendor supports IPv6 (surprisingly, many do!): Too bad the IPv6 support on the low-end Ciscos is mostly broken

Re: IPv6 Training?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> The magic answer to training setups: one big fat Xen box with >> a lot of VM's, virtual interfaces and of course: Quagga. > > You said "magic". Does this mean that there is a site where you can > download ISOs for this big fat XEN box? www.debian.org www.ubuntu.org ww

RE: IPv6 Training?

> The magic answer to training setups: one big fat Xen box with > a lot of VM's, virtual interfaces and of course: Quagga. You said "magic". Does this mean that there is a site where you can download ISOs for this big fat XEN box? > That said of course, who still types directly into their > ro

Re: IPv6 Training?

Adrian Chadd wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> The magic answer to training setups: one big fat Xen box with a lot of >> VM's, virtual interfaces and of course: Quagga. >> >> It looks like a Cisco, it feels like a Cisco, it is almost a Cisco. > > ..r http://www.ipflow.u

Re: IPv6 Training?

On Sun, Jun 03, 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: > The magic answer to training setups: one big fat Xen box with a lot of > VM's, virtual interfaces and of course: Quagga. > > It looks like a Cisco, it feels like a Cisco, it is almost a Cisco. ..r http://www.ipflow.utc.fr/index.php/Cisco_7200_Sim

Re: IPv6 Training?

Petri Helenius wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Alex Rubenstein writes: >> >>> Does anyone know of any good IPv6 training resources (classroom, or >>> self-guided)? >>> >> >> If your router vendor supports IPv6 (surprisingly, many do!): >> > Too bad the IPv6 support on the low-end

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >