"Ricky Beam" writes:
> ... In the mid-80's, /8's were handed out like candy because there were
> "lots of address space" and "we'll never use it all." ...
ahem. allow me to introduce myself. i was alive and actively using the
internet in the mid-80's, and when we got our /8 it was justified ve
Mark Andrews wrote:
WII's should be able to be directly connected to the network
without any firewall. If they can't be then they are broken.
As I'm sure you know, you can tell the difference between an Internet
evangelist and someone who mans the support lines by how they fee
Randy Bush wrote:
Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6.
what is "nat compliant?"
Quite unfortunately, that has come to mean something. Specifically, TCP
or UDP (and no other IP protocol numbers) and application pro
> Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
> that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6.
what is "nat compliant?"
randy
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
telling me I need 18 billion, billion addresses to cover 2 laptops, a Wii, 3
tivos, a router, and an access point?
You have more computing power in your house than the Fortune 500 did 40
years ago to manage their entire billing, payroll etc.
They had tho
>So it fails in scenarios where enforcing network policy is important.
If the policy is address specific, perhaps.
If the policy is segment specific, no prob.
/TJ
PS - for emphasis, I am not arguing strictly for or against either SLAAC or
DHCPv6.
Both can work, and IMHO should be allowed to do
George William Herbert wrote:
Perhaps there are better ways to do all of this from the start.
But IPv6 is not helping any of the ways we have evolved to deal
with it.
IPv6 does just fine with dynamic addressing and with static addressing.
I'm not sure what your problem is. An ISP can still
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:30:12PM -0800, Joe Abley wrote:
> The particular example I've been working with is with a JUNOSe server and
> an IOS client which, as a solution for business DSL service, seems
> deployable.
Yes! Sorry, I just try to emit a little more skepticism about
pervasive clien
Leo writes:
>Customers don't want static addresses.
>
>They want DNS that works, with their own domain names, forward and
>reverse.
>
>They want renumbering events to be infrequent, and announced in
>advance.
>
>They want the box the cable/dsl/fios provider to actually work,
>that is be able to do
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> This entire discussion went off topic, in regards to bcp and filtering.
>
> Off-list, I had someone point out:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-blackhole-urpf-02
>
> ...which is EXACTLY in line with what my end goal was originally, and by
> reading it, I feel a
> On 4/02/2009, at 2:43 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>> Nathan Ward wrote:
>>> On 4/02/2009, at 2:33 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>>>
- Currently, (as I write), I'm migrating my entire core from IPv4 to
IPv6. I've got the space, and I love to learn, so I'm just lab-ing
it up
now to
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 11:36:25AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
[...]
> WII's should be able to be directly connected to the network
> without any firewall. If they can't be then they are broken.
Amen brother Mark! Can I get a hallelujah from the chorus?
(Meanwhile, I'll continue to l
This is falling outside of the IPv6/RFC-1918 discussion, so
I'll only answer questions with questions... If there's need for
a real discussion, I'll let someone change the subject, and continue
on...
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:11:13AM +0100, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
[...]
> > The flip side shows u
In message , Sven-Haegar Ko
ch writes:
> If the end-users really get public addresses for their WII and game-PCs,
> do you really think they won't just open the box totally in their
> firewall/router and catch/create even more problems?
You mean they don't already list as the DMZ addres
On 5-Feb-2009, at 16:14, David W. Hankins wrote:
The truth is it is actually not very likely that you can build an
IPv6 network today using DHCPv6, unless you have large populations
of those systems.
The particular example I've been working with is with a JUNOSe server
and an IOS client whi
On Feb 5, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 5-Feb-2009, at 06:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
to be fair, there are 3 options for multihoming today in v6 (three
sanctioned by the IETF, not ordered in any order, not including
discussion about goodness/badness/oh-god-no-ness of these)
1) mu
Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6. And if they do, we should elect a
NANOG regular to go "POSTAL" and handle the problem. The solution to many of
these networking conundrums should rest with the application people, and
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:42:27 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for nearly
15 years.
So you were already doing NAT in 1994? Then you were ahead of the curve.
"NAT" didn't exist in '94. But, Yes. And, Yes. I had several computers
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 06:15:02PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> You might like to review the DHCPv6 specification and try some of its
>> implementations.
Joe is being a little overzealous. Unfortunately, there are very
few DHCPv6 clients in the wild today. I think this has grown slightly
since t
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, John Osmon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > [...] I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for
> > nearly 15 years. I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4
> > address for all of them. I have 2 private
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:12:19PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> Operationally, this has been met from my experience. In fact, all of these
> items are handled with stateless DHCPv6 in coordination with SLAAC.
> Stateful DHCPv6 seems to be limited with some vendors, but unless they plan
> to do pro
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:42:27PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 5 feb 2009, at 22:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for nearly 15
>> years.
>
> So you were already doing NAT in 1994? Then you were ahead of the curve.
Ahh, the 90s. No n
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:25:44 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
> wrote:
> > On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >> I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just
> >> an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to ea
James R. Cutler wrote:
Actually, lots more than five. E.g., NTP servers, preferred WINS
servers (sorry, AD servers) and many other interesting (to some) items.
And, the DNS domain my laptop joins depends on the network where it is
connected in accordance with business policies in effect. Thus
John Schnizlein wrote:
On 2009Feb4, at 8:56 PM, TJ wrote:
However, many do not "have" DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not
capable.
Maybe upgrades, service packs and updates will make them capable of
using DHCPv6 for useful functions such as finding the address of an
available name serve
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:18:15 -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
On 5-Feb-2009, at 13:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
This is the exact same bull as the /8 allocations in the early days
of IPv4.
...
So in fact it's not *exactly* the same.
Just because the address space is mind-alteringly larger does not mea
On Feb 5, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
...An IPv4 DHCP server gives me five things: ...DNS addresses and a
domain...
==
Actually, lots more than five. E.g., NTP servers, preferred WINS
servers (sorry, AD servers) and many other interesting (to some)
items.
Joe Abley wrote:
Note that I am not denying the faint aroma of defecation in the air, nor
the ghost of address assignment policies past.
Maybe because by sheer coincidence 2**32 /32 is exactly the same as ipv4
2**32 /32?
Maybe because by sheer coincidence 2**48 /48 is exactly the same a
Roger Marquis wrote:
references were 1995/96. The point I was trying to make is that RFC1918
and precursors were not motivated solely by address space limits. They
were also motivated by the increasingly common practice of numbering
internal networks with unassigned public address space. Rando
Owen DeLong wrote:
You are wrong
Quoting from RFC 1597 (a precursor which was obsoleted by RFC 1918):
Ok, I was wrong. RFC1597 is dated 1994 and I thought the earliest
references were 1995/96. The point I was trying to make is that RFC1918
and precursors were not motivated solely by addre
On 5 feb 2009, at 22:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
A single /64 isn't enough for a home user, because their gateway is
a router and needs a different prefix at both sides. Users may also
want to subnet their own network. So they need at least something
like a /60.
Mr. van B, your comments would b
On 5-Feb-2009, at 13:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
This is the exact same bull as the /8 allocations in the early
days of IPv4.
There are only 256 /8s in IPv4.
There are 72,057,594,037,927,936 /56s in IPv6. If you object to where
you think this is going, then perhaps it's more palatable to co
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> [...] I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for
> nearly 15 years. I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4
> address for all of them. I have 2 private /24's using a single public
> IPv4 address ri
On 2009Feb4, at 8:56 PM, TJ wrote:
However, many do not "have" DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not
capable.
Maybe upgrades, service packs and updates will make them capable of
using DHCPv6 for useful functions such as finding the address of an
available name server by the time IPv6-on
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:25:44 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just
an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable
modem, then we may very well be rec
On Thursday 05 February 2009 04:31:28 Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> > I am beginning to be worried that no one [has|is willing to divulge]
> > that they have accomplished this . One would think that someone would
> > at least pipe up just for the bragging factor .
>
> The thread seemed long and noi
Randy Bush wrote:
i am surprised that no one has mentioned that it is not unusual for
folk, even isps, to use space assigned to the us military but never
routed on the public internet. i was exceedingly amused when first
i did a traceroute from bologna.
randy
Consider it mentioned, first
> 4) Obtain PA space and do what you're doing with v4.
> (4) is problematic because filtering long prefixes in v6 seems to be
> more energetic than it is in v4. (5) is problematic if you don't
> qualify for PI space.
Oi, nooo
Lets not recreate the v4 issues by suggesting it's just problemati
On 5 feb 2009, at 20:06, Joe Abley wrote:
4) Obtain PA space and do what you're doing with v4.
5) Obtain PI space and do what you're doing with v4.
(4) is problematic because filtering long prefixes in v6 seems to be
more energetic than it is in v4. (5) is problematic if you don't
quali
Joe Abley wrote:
4) Obtain PA space and do what you're doing with v4.
5) Obtain PI space and do what you're doing with v4.
(4) is problematic because filtering long prefixes in v6 seems to be
more energetic than it is in v4. (5) is problematic if you don't qualify
for PI space.
As more pe
On 5-Feb-2009, at 06:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
to be fair, there are 3 options for multihoming today in v6 (three
sanctioned by the IETF, not ordered in any order, not including
discussion about goodness/badness/oh-god-no-ness of these)
1) multiple addresses on each device, one per provider
On Feb 5, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
* NAT disadvantage #3: RFC1918 was created because people were
afraid of
running out of addresses. (in 1992?)
Yes. One of my colleague, who participated in development of RFC
1918 confirmed it.
Your colleague was wrong. I was one of seve
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:24:16 PST, Roger Marquis said:
> Can you site a reference? Can you substantiate "lots"? I didn't think so.
> This is yet another case the rhetoric gets a little over the top, leading
> those of us who were doing this before NAT to suspect a non-technical
> agenda.
Some est
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:22:43 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft said:
> Telling customers "well, you might get renumbered randomly" isn't going
> to work, no matter what the theory about it all is. They do crazy and
> unexpected things and bleat about it even if you told them not to. At
> worse they
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So how do you plan on doing that?
It works fine to my house.
We know that IPv6 runs really well over regular ethernet or over
tunnels. It doesn't work so well over the weird crap that broadband ISPs
use which superficially looks like ethernet or PPP but isn't (and
* NAT disadvantage #3: RFC1918 was created because people were afraid of
running out of addresses. (in 1992?)
Yes. One of my colleague, who participated in development of RFC 1918
confirmed it.
Your colleague was wrong. I was one of several engineers who handed out
"private" addresses back b
On 5 feb 2009, at 5:29, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
I'm meant to have 250,000 customers running it by Christmas!
So how do you plan on doing that?
We know that IPv6 runs really well over regular ethernet or over
tunnels. It doesn't work so well over the weird crap that broadband
ISPs use w
On 5 feb 2009, at 2:20, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of
PD? If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter
drop in a park. Especially interested in CPE etc.
I've tested this years ago and it works just fine. Of c
On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet,
just an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL
& Cable modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
IPv4 thinking.
A single /64 isn't eno
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
I'm under no allusion that a /64 is going to be optional - it's really
too late which is sad. I think people have just latched onto it and now
accept it and defend it without thinking about "is this still the
answer?". Just because it's in an RFC doesn't mean it's
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:41 AM, TJ wrote:
>>It doesn't solve the problem of an enterprise with more than one
>>location/network-interconnect... we can go around this rose bush again and
>>again and again, but honestly, deployment of v6 happens for real when there
>>is a significant business reason
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Currently with v4 I have one (majority) of customers where they have
dynamic addresses. For those I'm happy to use PD - but my point was
that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL mean static allocations
for all customers. This is my fear, is NOT being able to
On Feb 5, 2009, at 7:41 AM, TJ wrote:
It doesn't solve the problem of an enterprise with more than one
location/network-interconnect... we can go around this rose bush
again and
again and again, but honestly, deployment of v6 happens for real
when there
is a significant business reason to d
>It doesn't solve the problem of an enterprise with more than one
>location/network-interconnect... we can go around this rose bush again and
>again and again, but honestly, deployment of v6 happens for real when there
>is a significant business reason to deploy it, and when the real concerns
of
>e
>Given my knowledge of where most large BRAS/Cable vendors are upto - I
don't
>think anyone could have. (Cisco won't have high end v6 pppoe support until
>late this year!).
Indeed, that is a big part of the problem in the home-user space.
>There's a lot of people who clearly don't work for ISPs
Scott Howard wrote:
> > And that brings us back to the good old catch-22
> > of ISPs not supporting IPv6 because consumer CPE doesn't support it,
> > and CPE not supporting it because ISP don't...
No, it's because neither need to do it. If they did the apparent
catch-22 would be fixed
Matthew Moy
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Roger Marquis wrote:
Perhaps what we need is an IPv6 NAT FAQ? I'm suspect many junior network
engineers will be interested in the rational behind statements like:
* NAT disadvantage #1: it costs a lot of money to do NAT (compared to what
it saves consumers, ILECs, or ISP
On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030,
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming
that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means
58 matches
Mail list logo
