Kotaro Fukasawa wrote:
If someone has a contact for Adelphia.net postmaster, could you please
contact me off list? One of our mail server is blocked without any
reason. We are getting nowhere with their postmaster/abuse contacts.
Thanks.
Kotaro Fukasawa
Kita Cable Network, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTE
So far everyone who has contacted me has generally reported a
positive experience with >their transitions.
Which ISP/NSP's?
-M<
There are "smarter" ways to scan v6 address space than this approach.
My favorite is "First, the attacker may rely on the administrator
conveniently numbering their hosts from [prefix]::1 upward. This
makes scanning trivial."
Most definitely- but not doing that should be considered best practi
On May 29, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
Scanning isn't AS EASY, but it certainly is still feasible,
With 1.5 million hosts it will only take 3500 years... for a
_single_ /64!
I'm not sure that's what I would call feasible.
There are "smarter" ways to scan v6 address space than th
This assumes a single machine scanning, not a botnet of 1000 or even the
1.5m the dutch gov't collected 2 yrs ago.
Again, a sane discussion is in order. Scanning isn't AS EASY, but it
certainly is still feasible,
With 1.5 million hosts it will only take 3500 years... for a _single_ /64!
I'm n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>> You get one shot at fixed prefix size filters, miss and you'll pay
>> forever. Which is more scarce, /32's or routing table entries.
>
> your first lema is false.
> and RTE are more scar
On Tue, 29 May 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> However, you can *always* turn on IPsec with IPv6, which is not always true
> for IPv4 (NATs, no end-to-end, etc.).
>
security is not JUST ipsec, and ipsec is not actually included in all
current ipv6 stacks :( (merike has some nice slides on
We do have dual stack in all our customer sites, and at the time being
didn't got complains or support calls that may be considered due to the
.
So far everyone who has contacted me has generally reported a positive
experience with their transitions.
The biggest complaints so far have com
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>
> You get one shot at fixed prefix size filters, miss and you'll pay
> forever. Which is more scarce, /32's or routing table entries.
your first lema is false.
and RTE are more scarce.
>
> brandon
l
On 30/05/2007, at 9:47 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
We do have dual stack in all our customer sites, and at the time being
didn't got complains or support calls that may be considered due to
the
.
I heard the same from other people. I also heard the opposite some
times,
but I hav
On 30/05/2007, at 11:33 AM, Perry Lorier wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and
IPv6,
they should not notice it.
And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need
to know
them ASAP. Any transition means some pa
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any horror stories about deploying v6?
>
> not horror, just had to back off.
>
> small site. so public servers provide multiple and diverse services.
> if a hostname has a v6 address, then all services must be v6 capable
> because c
On Tue, May 29, 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> There is something to be said for not being able to blindly spew worm
> traffic and still expect to get a sensible hit ratio as with IPv4.
You don't need to blindly spew worm traffic anymore; you can just
spew based on p2p traffic.
Adrian
Hello;
On May 29, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Al Iverson wrote:
On 5/29/07, Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would you do if a major US computer security firm
attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
it out?
On top of th
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,
they should not notice it.
And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to know
them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we start, sooner
we can sort it ou
On 30/05/2007, at 5:40 AM, Donald Stahl wrote:
How do you get mail.ipv6.yahoo.com to actually get *used*, when
your average
user doesn't know where they set 'mail.yahoo.com' in their PC's
configuration,
and either don't understand why sometimes's it's foo.com and
sometimes it's
www.foo.c
We do have dual stack in all our customer sites, and at the time being
didn't got complains or support calls that may be considered due to the
.
I heard the same from other people. I also heard the opposite some times,
but I haven't been able to debug any of those cases to understand where is
> 1) Locate baseball bat
> On a more serious note, I'd contact them and ask for them to stop.
> Barring that call a lawyer and have a fancy letter sent to
> someone's boss.
Seems pointless really. If you detect someone hacking your servers and
your company does not have a network security depar
When I do IPv6 trainings, I always clearly state that it is, in principle,
same secure as IPv4: IPsec is the same.
However, you can *always* turn on IPsec with IPv6, which is not always true
for IPv4 (NATs, no end-to-end, etc.).
Also, port scanning is not "so simple", and while in IPv6 a /24 can
but ipv6 is more secure, yes? :) (no it is not)
Does the relative security of IVp4 and IPv6 *really* matter on the same Internet
that has Vint Cerf's 140 million pwned machines on it?
was the ":)" not enough: "I'm joking" ??
Just askin', ya know?
some people do think that it does... they
On Tue, 29 May 2007, David Conrad wrote:
Should've clarified: this was in the context of IPv4...
To be honest, I'm not sure what the appropriate equivalent would be in IPv6
(/128 or /64? Arguments can be made for both I suppose).
There have been discussions of this sort made over the years
RIPE may only give out /32's but ARIN gives out /48's so there wouldn't be
any deaggregation in that case.
The RIPE NCC assign /48s from 2001:0678::/29 according to ripe-404:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-404.html
Yeah I missed that. This matches ARIN's policy for critical
infrastructur
> > That's not what I said. If /48 are accepted by * then people with
> > a /32 or whatever will deagg to /48.
> Obviously you don't need to accept /48's from anywhere- you can restrict
> it to the PI pool- then /32's don't deaggregate but networks approved by
> ARIN or RIPE or whomever still w
William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>
>>> f-root does this on the IPv6 side: 2001:500::/48
>>>
>>> Whether that's available everywhere on IPv6 networks, is as Bill
>>> pointed-out, another question.
>>
>> Have a look at it:
>> http://www.sixxs.net/tool
Ed,
On May 29, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
If you want to read Dilbert on-line and I tell you that it is
available at a certain URL, would you rather I give you "http://
www.dilbert.com" or that I send you "if you use IPv4 then http://
www.dilbert.com" else if you use IPv6 then ht
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Matthew Black wrote:
What would you do if a major US computer security firm
attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
it out?
Contact your internal security and legal folks. Sometimes in large
organizations
On 5/29/07, Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would you do if a major US computer security firm
attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
it out?
On top of the other suggestions, I would add: Make sure you're really
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> > grr, it ain't just buying new equipment, it's IT work, its certification
> > of code/features/bugs, interoperatability. Provisioning, planning,
> > configmanagement training...
> My apologies- I missed the "opex"-I thought you were just referring
Don't give people an excuse to deagg their /32
RIPE may only give out /32's but ARIN gives out /48's so there wouldn't be
any deaggregation in that case.
That's not what I said. If /48 are accepted by * then people with
a /32 or whatever will deagg to /48.
I understand now that you were refer
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:10:17PM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote:
>
> > f-root does this on the IPv6 side: 2001:500::/48
> >
> > Whether that's available everywhere on IPv6 networks, is as Bill
> > pointed-out, another question.
> One of the root servers not being available everywhere seems like a
> Does anyone have any horror stories about deploying v6?
not horror, just had to back off.
small site. so public servers provide multiple and diverse services.
if a hostname has a v6 address, then all services must be v6 capable
because clients do not retry the A record.
and, as someone point
At 12:01 -0700 5/29/07, David Conrad wrote:
What a horrible idea. Applications automatically pre- or appending crap to
domain name labels shouldn't be done, period.
I won't argue that, but it happens.
And I do make use of it. When I am back from a trip I type in
"dilbert" and see the comi
Ed,
On May 29, 2007, at 9:22 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
First - "the way you ask for names" is not different at the
application level, it is different in the "layer" in which you find
where to shoot packets.
Right. The problem is, the methodology by which you shoot packets
may or may not w
grr, it ain't just buying new equipment, it's IT work, its certification
of code/features/bugs, interoperatability. Provisioning, planning,
configmanagement training...
My apologies- I missed the "opex"-I thought you were just referring to
hardware which of course makes no sense.
-Don
On 29-mei-2007, at 18:17, Leo Vegoda wrote:
http://ask.metafilter.com/63532/Trouble-with-Firefox
it ends with this comment: "If your hosting provider is serving
your domain with IPv6, then it is time to find a new provider."
I guess they can stick with their current hosting provider then,
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 12:53 -0400, George Imburgia wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007, Matthew Black wrote:
>
> > What would you do if a major US computer security firm
> > attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
> > Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
> > it out?
>
> I'
On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:59 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > > This changeover will not: 1) Fix the routing problem
> > > inherent with present locator/endpoint binding, nor
> > > 2) solve your favorit
Should've clarified: this was in the context of IPv4...
To be honest, I'm not sure what the appropriate equivalent would be
in IPv6 (/128 or /64? Arguments can be made for both I suppose).
Rgds,
-drc
On May 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On May 29, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Donald Stah
Matthew Black wrote:
>
> What would you do if a major US computer security firm
> attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
> Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
> it out?
>
> matthew black
> network services
> california state university, long beach
>
What happened to
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> > and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about
> > expending opex/capex to do this transition work. Today the simplest answer
> > is: "if we expend Z dollars on new equipment, and A dollars on IT work we
> > will be able to captu
At 9:36 AM -0700 5/29/07, todd glassey wrote:
>>
>>This is an issue for the ISP community, in that a day
>>will come where you're going to desperately want to
>>connect a new customer to the "Internet" via IPv6
>>and give them a reasonable customer experience.
>
>Uhhh OK - but if you built you NAT
On 29 May 2007, at 6:23pm, Donald Stahl wrote:
[...]
RIPE may only give out /32's but ARIN gives out /48's so there
wouldn't be any deaggregation in that case.
The RIPE NCC assign /48s from 2001:0678::/29 according to ripe-404:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-404.html
Regards,
Leo
On Tue, 29 May 2007 08:21:47 PDT, Matthew Black said:
> What would you do if a major US computer security firm
> attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
> Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
> it out?
Step 0: Define "attempted to hack"?
Step 1: Ask whoever acts as
On a more serious note, I'd contact them and ask for them to stop.
Barring that call a lawyer and have a fancy letter sent to someone's
boss.
Being as they are a security company it is possible- if unlikely- that
someone typo'd an address range into a vulnerability scanner.
"Never attribute t
On May 29, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Matthew Black wrote:
What would you do if a major US computer security firm
attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
I think the first thing to do would be to attempt to determine
whether they were trying to actually 'hack' anything, or whether they
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:59 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > This changeover will not: 1) Fix the routing problem
> > inherent with present locator/endpoint binding, nor
> > 2) solve your favorite fib/rib/cam/convergence limit,
> > nor 3) make the infras
How do you get mail.ipv6.yahoo.com to actually get *used*, when your average
user doesn't know where they set 'mail.yahoo.com' in their PC's configuration,
and either don't understand why sometimes's it's foo.com and sometimes it's
www.foo.com, or don't even bother, they just type 'foo' into the
On 5/29/07, Quinn Kuzmich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On a more serious note, I'd contact them and ask for them to stop.
Barring that call a lawyer and have a fancy letter sent to someone's
boss.
While you're pursuing that route from a legal/business side, on the
technical side I'd suggest n
On Tue, 29 May 2007 09:21:49 EDT, Donald Stahl said:
> So many people seem to be obsessed with getting the end users connected
> via IPv6 but there is no point in doing so until the content is reachable.
> The built in tunneling in Windows could be a problem so let's start by
> using different
> What would you do if a major US computer security firm
> attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
> Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
> it out?
call the fuzz
> >> I understand the problems but I think there are clear cut cases where
> >> /48's make sense- a large scale anycast DNS provider would seem to be a
> >> good candidate for a /48 and I would hope it would get routed. Then again
> >> that might be the only sensible reason...
> >
> > Don't give p
/48's handed out by ARIN are most likely in the PI range that ARIN has deamed
for PI use only. Networks are aware of the PI block and have opened their
filters to let /48 or more specific through if and only if it comes from the
special IP block. That said...not everyone is letting more speci
On 5/29/07, Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would you do if a major US computer security firm
attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
it out?
Submit your log files to http://www.dshield.org/howto.html ?
Block thei
f-root does this on the IPv6 side: 2001:500::/48
Whether that's available everywhere on IPv6 networks, is as Bill pointed-out,
another question.
One of the root servers not being available everywhere seems like a pretty
lousy idea :)
On another note- are there any folks on the list who hav
Small clarification.
I'm not either saying "don't deploy dual-stack in servers", not at all. As a
matter of experience, of someone using IPv6 for everything from everyplace
in the world, I don't believe there is so much problem in doing so, neither
so many users will really have any problem, and
On May 29, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Donald Stahl wrote:
vixie had a fun discussion about anycast and dns... something
about him
being sad/sorry about making everyone have to carry a /24 for f-root
everywhere.
Whether it's a /24 for f-root or a /20 doesn't really make a
difference- it's a routing ta
On 29 May 2007, at 5:22pm, David Conrad wrote:
[...]
they should not notice it.
They shouldn't, but they will. Having had the fun of trying to
figure out why I lost connectivity to a site (then realizing it was
because I had connected via IPv6 instead of IPv4 and IPv6
routing ... chan
On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > > > For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them
> > > > IPv4/IPv6
> > > > dual-stack.
> > >
> > > What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?
> > >
> > > Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy
1) Locate baseball bat
2) Acquire plane ticket
3) Call friends in city where said company is located
4) help them locate their own bats
5) ...
6) Profit
On a more serious note, I'd contact them and ask for them to stop.
Barring that call a lawyer and have a fancy letter sent to someon
Matthew Black wrote:
What would you do if a major US computer security firm
attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
it out?
matthew black
network services
california state university, long beach
I'd contact the chiefs of the c
What I'm saying, across different postings, is that I'm not advocating for
dual-stacking existing services immediately (there is no need for that, no
new advantages at this point). It is nice to have, but I agree that we must
go step by step and time will tell us when moving on or even retiring IP
Chris L. Morrow wrote:
[..]
> vixie had a fun discussion about anycast and dns... something about him
> being sad/sorry about making everyone have to carry a /24 for f-root
> everywhere. I think there is a list of 'golden prefixes' or something,
> normally this is where Jeroen Massar jumps in with
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
>
> > Can anyone think of a
> > reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might
> > cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?
>
> None that I can think of.
branding
On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
>
> ISP's are going to have to actually *lead* the transition
> to IPv6 both in terms of infrastructure and setting
> customer expectations.
and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about
expending opex/capex to do this transition wor
Jared Mauch wrote:
Some providers (eg: www.us.ntt.net) have their sales/marketing
path ipv6 enabled. Perhaps this will help self-select customers that are
clued? ;)
Most European/Asian based providers/peers don't even blink when I
mention turning up IPv6. Not so with most US based ne
At 10:31 -0400 5/29/07, Donald Stahl wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,
they should not notice it.
It is not useless- I am specifically talking about setting it up initially so
that technically capable people can use and test the infrastructure wit
At 5:08 AM -1000 5/29/07, Randy Bush wrote:
> > (*) Anyone advocating staying with IPv4 and relying
>> on NAT and market demand as an alternative
>> needs to consider the completely deaggregated
>> address usage pattern (and routing table explosion)
>> that results.
>
>not that i t
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
That said- ARIN is handing out /48's- should we be blocking validly
assigned networks?
your network might have to to protect it's valuable routing slots. There
are places in the v4 world where /24's are not carried either. So, as Bill
said just cause y
At 2:34 PM + 5/29/07, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> > Actual behavior of ISPs will change as they realize even
>> if they're not the first ISP to have to connect customers
>> via IPv6-only, they will be face that situation in time.
>
>i'm not disagreeing or saying that ipv6 won't ever get deployed
> I understand the problems but I think there are clear cut cases where
> /48's make sense- a large scale anycast DNS provider would seem to be a
> good candidate for a /48 and I would hope it would get routed. Then again
> that might be the only sensible reason...
Don't give people an excuse
vixie had a fun discussion about anycast and dns... something about him
being sad/sorry about making everyone have to carry a /24 for f-root
everywhere.
Whether it's a /24 for f-root or a /20 doesn't really make a difference-
it's a routing table entry either way- and why waste addresses.
I t
> > > For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them
> > > IPv4/IPv6
> > > dual-stack.
> >
> > What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?
> >
> > Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy of being
> > publicly discussed and compared.
>
> stewart bamfo
Jordi,
On May 29, 2007, at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and
IPv6,
Why?
The IETF chose to create a new protocol instead of extending the old
protocol. Even the way you ask for names is different (A vs. ).
Why sho
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
> Can anyone think of a
> reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might
> cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?
None that I can think of.
In the field, for servers/services we have enabled v6 on, we
have created paralle
What would you do if a major US computer security firm
attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
it out?
matthew black
network services
california state university, long beach
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> >> That said- ARIN is handing out /48's- should we be blocking validly
> >> assigned networks?
> >
> > your network might have to to protect it's valuable routing slots. There
> > are places in the v4 world where /24's are not carried either. So, as Bi
> (*) Anyone advocating staying with IPv4 and relying
> on NAT and market demand as an alternative
> needs to consider the completely deaggregated
> address usage pattern (and routing table explosion)
> that results.
not that i think this a nice approach or anything, but ...
it w
That said- ARIN is handing out /48's- should we be blocking validly
assigned networks?
your network might have to to protect it's valuable routing slots. There
are places in the v4 world where /24's are not carried either. So, as Bill
said just cause you get an allocation doesn't mean you can
> what's interesting is the chicken/egg problem of users/content/ipv6.
> What's driving v6 deployment?
Currently, it is IPv4 exhaustion. As for content, that can be tied to
users in some situations, for instance VPNs. That's why I think that a
lot of the worry is premature. Instead of figuring ou
On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them
> > IPv4/IPv6
> > dual-stack.
>
> What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?
>
> Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy of being
> publicly discusse
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> # traceroute6 www.nanog.org
> traceroute6: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
>
> That would be a start... It took years to get the IETF to eat its own
> dog food, though.
i suspect the merit/nanog folks involved with the server(s)
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> That said- ARIN is handing out /48's- should we be blocking validly
> assigned networks?
your network might have to to protect it's valuable routing slots. There
are places in the v4 world where /24's are not carried either. So, as Bill
said just cau
> This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both
> IPv4 and IPv6, they should not notice it.
This is *NOT* useless. If a user network is connected to an ISP only
through IPv6, then it is very useful indeed, if they can access email
services or any other service provided by Yahoo, Goo
On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
>
> At 3:30 PM + 5/27/07, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> >what's going to change this in the near future?
>
> At some point in the near future (e.g. 3 to 5 years),
> an ISP is going to be connecting some customers to
> the 'Internet' using just IPv6 address
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,
they should not notice it.
It is not useless- I am specificallyt talking about setting it up
initially so that technically capable people can use and test the
infrastructure without breaking anything for those people on v
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 05:22:23PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> 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 LAC
At 9:21 AM -0400 5/29/07, Donald Stahl wrote:
>>At this point, ISP's should make solid plans for supplying
>>customers with both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, even
>>if the IPv6 connectivity is solely for their web servers and
>>mail gateway. The priority is not getting customers to
>>use IPv6, it
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,
they should not notice it.
And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to know
them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we start, sooner
we can sort it out, if required.
Regards,
Jord
On 5/29/07, John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:
P.S. I'm not at this NANOG, and it's probably too late
to round up presentations, but what might be
really helpful to most folks would be presentations
which cover some or most aspects (getting transit,
address
On 5/29/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 29-mei-2007, at 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
> The built in tunneling in Windows could be a problem so let's start
> by using different dns names for IPv6 enabled servers-
> mail.ipv6.yahoo.com or whatever. Can anyone think of a re
On 29-mei-2007, at 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
So many people seem to be obsessed with getting the end users
connected via IPv6 but there is no point in doing so until the
content is reachable.
Actually IPv6 has the potential to be very important in the peer-to-
peer space. That doesn't ju
Anything more specific than /32 is going to be filtered at some portion of
the ISPs whether for the good or bad. There are some subsets of the v6
address space that have a higher chance of /48 working (for some definition
of 'working') than other parts of the address space, though.
More speci
At this point, ISP's should make solid plans for supplying
customers with both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, even
if the IPv6 connectivity is solely for their web servers and
mail gateway. The priority is not getting customers to
use IPv6, it's getting their public-facing servers IPv6
reachable
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:25:21AM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote:
> I'd like to see ipv6.cnn.com, ipv6.google.com, ipv6.yahoo.com, etc. I don't
> see where this would be a problem for anyone except those people who
> explicitly try to connect via IPv6- and those people should really know
> enou
At 3:30 PM + 5/27/07, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>what's going to change this in the near future?
At some point in the near future (e.g. 3 to 5 years),
an ISP is going to be connecting some customers to
the 'Internet' using just IPv6 addresses. It may not
be your ISP doing it first, but it will
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 08:45:38AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> >What is the smallest IPv6 advertisement that organizations are going to
> >honour- are we still looking at a minimum of a /48?
>
> Anything more specific than /32 is going to be filtere
On 29-mei-2007, at 13:41, Adrian Chadd wrote:
* So is DHCPv6 the "way to go" for deploying IPv6 range(s) to end-
customers?
Considering the current models of L2TP over IP for broadband
aggregation
and wholesaling where the customer device speaks PPPoX.
IP6CP in PPP doesn't have the cap
On Tue, May 29, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's why I suggested that NANOG run some kind of IPv6 vendor showcase
> in which all the vendors would be running an interoperable IPv6 network.
> As many have pointed out, this is not just about routers since Cisco and
> Juniper have had IPv6 su
>Back in the day, there was something called Interop where vendors were
>put under the thumb. Since there is no such thing for IPv6, perhaps
>NANOG could step into that vacuum.
I've gotten a couple of replies pointing me to http://www.ipv6ready.org
Although the website doesn't make it very clear
I don't really agree 100%. There is DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation, and it just
works !
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 10:46:47 +0200
> Para: Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROT
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
