On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
uTorrent actively enables IPv6 on XP SP2 and Vista machines in the install
process (by default, it can be turned off). IPv6 is turned on, on lots of
PCs.
We looked into this, and IPv6 is not mentioned in the install process, and
it's not selected by
On 19/08/2008, at 6:28 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
uTorrent actively enables IPv6 on XP SP2 and Vista machines in the
install process (by default, it can be turned off). IPv6 is turned
on, on lots of PCs.
We looked into this, and IPv6 is not
On 19/08/2008, at 6:34 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 19/08/2008, at 6:28 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
uTorrent actively enables IPv6 on XP SP2 and Vista machines in the
install process (by default, it can be turned off). IPv6 is turned
on, on lots of
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes. If ARIN will give you a /48 for every
customer, then why be miserly with
So, if you run a network today, deploy 6to4 and Teredo
relays, regardless of whether you have customer facing IPv6 or not.
If you serve IPv6 content, you are already running Teredo and
6to4 relays, so that Windows Vista users get near to
IPv4-speed access to your IPv6 content, right?
My recollection is that there were complaints about them reconfiguring
people's TCP stacks and uTorrent stopped enabling IPv6.
- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
http://www.pandonetworks.com
520 Broadway, 10th Floor, NY, NY, 10012
[EMAIL PROTECTED], 646/465-0570.
Sent from my iPhone.
1. I think ARP is effectively a ping for a mac. It verifies connectivity on
level 2 between two hosts. You have to be on the same segment though
To make it work, you would have to know the mac address of the remote host,
clear the arp table the local host, then send the ARP request
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert E. Seastrom) writes:
Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I actually use freebsd as a router on soekris, but I do need a general
purpose os on the system as well.
Speaking of Soekris (and the PCEngines ALIX by extension, of which I
have several):
Does anyone
Nathan Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 19/08/2008, at 11:32 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Also, from time to time I have to reflash these to repurpose them
(NanoBSD vs. pfSense vs. AskoziaPBX). It's a complete pain to
disassemble their enclosures so I can get at the CF cards. I've often
Jared Mauch wrote:
While you're at it, you also placed the reachable-via rx on
all your customer interfaces. If you're paranoid, start with the 'any'
rpf and then move to the strict rpf. The strict rpf also helps with
routing loops.
Be careful not to enable strict rpf on multihomed
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes. If ARIN will give you a /48
Am 19.08.2008 um 16:28 schrieb Robert E. Seastrom:
What I want to do is have a minimal functionality netbootable image
that is sufficient to set up network interfaces and then do:
ftp get pfsense.img | dd of=/dev/ad0
and completely blow away what's on the flash and replace it with
something
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:42:29PM -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
If you want to test a resource, be it the end user or an infrastructure
interface, how do you know how to foo it (foo being some value of ping,
traceroute, look it up in SNMP/NetFlow, etc)?
I submit that if you use dynamic
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes.
On 20/08/2008, at 5:25 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if
Michael Thomas wrote:
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
On 8/19/08 1:36 PM, Nathan Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
64 bits is not a magical boundary.
112 bits is widely recommended for linknets, for example.
64 bits is common, because of EUI-64 and friends. That's it.
There is nothing, anywhere, that says that the first 64 bits is for
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loopbacks!
some of us remember when we thought similarly for /24s for p2p
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Michael Thomas wrote:
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I don't operate an ISP network (not anymore, anyway...). My customers
are departments within my organization, so a /64 per department/VLAN
is more sane/reasonable for my environment.
Uh, the lower 64 bits of an IP6
-Original Message-
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes.
On 8/19/08 1:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loopbacks!
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 04:56:33PM +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:
Sit up and pay attention, even if you don't now run IPv6, or even if
you don't ever intend to run IPv6. Your off-net bandwidth is going to
increase, unless you put some relays in. As a friend of mine just said
to me: Welcome to your
Hughes Net DNS issue. I am 72.169.156.122. Notice the Source is port 53,
destination is 20xx.
Because I am not a large company like McDonalds this apparently cannot be
resolved.
No. TimeSourceDestination Protocol
Info
190 51.553317 72.169.156.121
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/18/226228from=rss
Well, IPv6 usage is actually increasing fairly rapidly, anyway:
http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/?type=ipv6
So, still, usage is not very impressive (and some of
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Joe Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hughes Net DNS issue. I am 72.169.156.122. Notice the Source is port 53,
destination is 20xx.
Because I am not a large company like McDonalds this apparently cannot be
resolved.
wow that was a lot of really hard to read
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:30:38 -0400
From: Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/19/08 1:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of
Randy Bush wrote:
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loopbacks!
some of us remember when we thought similarly
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next week at apops:
http://www.attn.jp/presentation/apnic26-maz-ipv6-p2p.pdf
randy
On 20/08/2008, at 6:39 AM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 04:56:33PM +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:
Sit up and pay attention, even if you don't now run IPv6, or even if
you don't ever intend to run IPv6. Your off-net bandwidth is going to
increase, unless you put some relays in. As a
On 20/08/2008, at 6:57 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/18/226228from=rss
Well, IPv6 usage is actually increasing fairly rapidly, anyway:
http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/?type=ipv6
On 19/08/08 19:23, Jon Kibler wrote:
I am looking at deploying an open source CA/PKI for a client. It would
be only for internal users and systems. It would have to manage a few
hundred certificates against the organization's self-signed root cert.
It would be installed on a CentOS 5.x
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Kevin Loch wrote:
While you're at it, you also placed the reachable-via rx on
all your customer interfaces. If you're paranoid, start with the 'any'
rpf and then move to the strict rpf. The strict rpf also helps with
routing loops.
Be careful not to enable
32 matches
Mail list logo
