Giving away code and hardware is quite the opposite of
lucrative, let me assure you.
Right. I looked at your message and it does not parse
very clearly. Given that it is odd for people to offer
to give away boxes, let alone quote a price for the
box that they are giving away, I thought you
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 about everything
else).
That would be a huge benefit to the
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
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
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 pre-built FreeBSD image
that does it, boot off compact flash or hard
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
-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
On 17/03/2008, at 11:07 PM, [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
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some decent
instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of patches,
and Miredo packaged up in a
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008, Andy Dills wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some
decent
instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of
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
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
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?
On 18/03/2008, at 3:34 PM, Andy Dills wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got
some decent
instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of
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
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
:some time back in
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
