On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
> an record. Or even Microsoft ;)
i agree 100%, which is why I posted something similar almost 2 years ago
now :( It'd
I agree, it is *right now* one of the main drivers.
In addition to what I'd mention yesterday about a possible workshop or
panel, I've prepared an extensive document (21 pages at the time being)
about the IPv4 exhaustion and all the temporary/permanent "mitigations",
results they could provide an
Nathan Ward wrote:
[..]
>> Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
>
> Sure, but it's not as simple as just giving v6 addresses to end users
> one day, even if your entire network and backend systems support it.
Why not? If folks are still using Windows 98 by then I
NAT-PT is not the only solution for this. In addition to that, even if
deprecated, load balancers (there are quite a few), still support it. In
general, this is only needed if you can't update your Apache, IIS or
whatever web server to dual-stack, which normally should not be a problem at
all !
A
On 27/05/2007, at 11:06 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Nathan Ward wrote:
[..]
Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4
addresses?
Sure, but it's not as simple as just giving v6 addresses to end users
one day, even if your entire network and backend systems support it.
Why not
Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> On 27/05/2007, at 11:06 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Nathan Ward wrote:
[..]
> Because for IPv6 to be useful to the masses, content is required.
That is something for the content providers to resolve. That is the
other side of the table and they have the 'easy' portion.
> Nathan Ward wrote:
> [..]
> >> Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
> >=20
> > Sure, but it's not as simple as just giving v6 addresses to end users
> > one day, even if your entire network and backend systems support it.
>
> Why not? If folks are still using Wi
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >
> > > on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
> > > an record. Or even Microsoft ;)
> >
> > i agree 100
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
> sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
I think you also missed the suggestion that se
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
I think you also missed the suggestion that send
On Sun, 27 May 2007, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
On Sun, 27 May 2007, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
> >> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
> >> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
> >> sound to me like lesser service), during the t
> > Because for IPv6 to be useful to the masses, content is required.
Indeed. I'd hoped there would be time to finish the multicast project
first. I'll kick off getting BBC content up on v6
> The really big problem is that
> there is a case that when you do enable 's on your service that
> s
william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
>>> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
>>> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
>>> sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
>>
>> I
I need to insist on this: I agree that having the content providers
dual-stack is nice to have, of course, and I will applaud it if happens in
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.. BUT it is NOT an immediate need.
We should not deploy IPv6-only networks at the LANs. We may have IPv6 only
at core infras
On Sun, 27 May 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> There are many things in Vista, and hopefully more to come, which prefer
> IPv6 for peer-to-peer. And even if the ISPs don't offer IPv6 at all, hosts
> use 6to4 or Teredo to automatically provide the required IPv6 connectivity.
is there a glo
On 27/05/2007, at 9:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y!
with
> an record. Or even Microsoft ;)
i agree 100%, which is why
Hi Chris,
Yes, there are several. We host one of them at least.
But they are not needed for peer-to-peer only for those cases when some
users use Teredo and others have 6to4 or other IPv6 (native, other
transition techniques).
Of course, this situation will become more and more frequent (more p
I believe that using a gateway or a translation device for ipv6-ipv4
just gives people an excuse to ignore ipv6. I really do believe that if
ipv6 is to go full scale we have to jump in with everything ipv6 only or
ipv4 the intermediate will just postpone the inevitable.
Take that from experience,
Those are different things and I can't agree with you.
I¹m not saying that using a translator is the best thing to do. I will
prefer not to go that way, and that requires the services and contents to be
dual-stacked, but is better a translator than nothing if no other way.
Regarding the relays (
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 05:32:04PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> > > Because for IPv6 to be useful to the masses, content is required.
>
> Indeed. I'd hoped there would be time to finish the multicast project
> first. I'll kick off getting BBC content up on v6
>
> > The really big problem
On 5/26/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
wow! you missed the one day workshop in the lacnic meeting you just
attended? bummer.
I'm lucky enough to be able to attend RIPE, ARIN, and LACNIC meetings
so that I can get basic information since I can't get that at a NANOG
meeti
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 03:14:44PM +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > > on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
> > >
> Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
and the speed bump extraordinaire is that you can not connect to the
internet from a v6 only site. in the mid and long run, all else pales
before this.
the rest is mostly
o how to configure frammistat
o why does flogist
> A simple solution are the IPv4-IPv6 proxies
'cept you wither you need v4 addresses, or it don't scale.
randy
Hello,
The call for papers for the joint SANOG / APOPS and APNIC member's
meeting is here. Submission on interesting topics relevant to operators
are welcome.
Cfp and submission guidelines are available at.
http://www.sanog.org/sanog10/cfp.htm
Being the first combined meeting between SANOG
26 matches
Mail list logo
