Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
Barton F Bruce wrote:
Stopping the abuse is fine, but cutting service to the point that a
family
using VOIP only for their phone service can't call 911 and several
children
burn to death could bring all sorts of undesirable regulation let
alone the
Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net writes:
the people with the clue-by-fours are over on the IPv6 lists.
They've upgraded to clue-by-six's. Not as handy, but will last longer.
Bjørn
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Snip - good points all
Most of those concerns are in fact mitigated by a well implemented Privacy
implementation
Which is why I started off by mentioning RFC4191. ;)
-End Original Message-
And
FWIW - I don't believe the two arguments are in opposition/conflict ... But
totally agree with your end result of /56s and /48s, with add'l bits held
in reserve ...
/TJ
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
[ I normally don't say this, but please reply to the
On 05/10/09 22:28 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:13:37 -0400, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
I don't understand. You're saying you have overlapping class boundaries
in your network?
No. What I'm saying is IPv6 is supposed to be the new, ground-breaking,
unimaginably huge
On 05/10/09 22:53 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:55:35 -0400, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
All of the items in the above list are true of DHCP. ...
In an IPv4 world (which is where DHCP lives), it's much MUCH harder to
track assignments -- I don't share my DHCP logs with
-Original Message-
From: Eugeniu Patrascu [mailto:eu...@imacandi.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:20 AM
To: Gadi Evron
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for
bottedclients
.
I think the need for someone being able to call 911 from
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:herrin-na...@dirtside.com]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 12:58 PM
To: Brian Johnson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
/60 - the smallest amount you should allocate to a downstream customer
with more than one
On 05/10/09 23:23 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
You underestimate the power of the marketing department and the bean
counters. I assure you, residential ISPs are looking for schemes to give
out as little address space as possible.
That has not been my (limited) experience. If you are aware of
-Original Message-
From: robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov [mailto:robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
Organizations will be provided /48s or smaller, but given the current
issues with routing /48's
Doug Barton wrote:
[ I normally don't say this, but please reply to the list only, thanks.
]
I've been a member of the let's not assume the IPv6 space is
infinite school from day 1, even though I feel like I have a pretty
solid grasp of the math. Others have alluded to some of the reasons
Rick et al,
I work at an ISP, and I know staff at several other ISPs, we are all
trying to do this right. If a /56 makes sense and is supported by the
IPv6 technology and we won't have issues supplying these to customers
(technically speaking), then we will most likely do this or something
On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
Barton F Bruce wrote:
Stopping the abuse is fine, but cutting service to the point that
a family
using VOIP only for their phone service can't call 911 and several
children
burn to death could bring all sorts of
On Oct 6, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
-Original Message-
From: robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov [mailto:robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
Organizations will be provided /48s or smaller, but
* Florian Weimer:
It seems to be down, based on
http://routerproxy.grnoc.iu.edu/internet2/ and trying to get a
traceroute to he.net/2001:470:0:76::2 from the SEAT location. BGP
seems to be up, though.
I've been told that the looking glass needs some knowledge about
Internet2's routing
Re: VOIP, 911, bots
Shape their bandwidth down to the minimum required to make a 911 call,
around 64Kbps, and capture their web accesses.
--
-Barry Shein
The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD
Tony Hain wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
In the following I'm assuming that you're familiar with the fact that
staying on the 4-byte boundaries makes sense because it makes reverse
DNS delegation easier. It also makes the math easier.
I assume you meant 4-bit. ;)
Grrr, I hate when I do that.
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:34:28 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
although that isn't the case today. However, I believe
that 90.1 is supposed to be parsed equivalent to 90.0.0.1
and 90.5.1 is supposed to be treated as 90.5.0.1, so,
32.1.13.184.241.1 should also work for the above if
you expanded todays
mark [at] edgewire wrote:
The end problem is still users and really, these users will click on
anything that has a bright and shiny button which says, Ok. Really, does
setting up a portal help? Perhaps a sandboxed area which has some
information on securing their machine and keeping it clean
-Original Message-
From: Eugeniu Patrascu [mailto:eu...@imacandi.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:20 AM
To: Gadi Evron
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for
bottedclients
.
I think the need for someone being able to call 911
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:25:44 -0500
Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
On 05/10/09 23:23 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
You underestimate the power of the marketing department and the bean
counters. I assure you, residential ISPs are looking for schemes to give
out as little address space as
Someone else pointed out that if the system in question has been
botted/owned/pwn3d/whatever
you want to call it, then, you can't guarantee it would make the 911
call correctly anyway.
I realize that many NANOG'ers don't actually use the technologies that
we talk about, so I'm just going
unimaginably huge *classless* network. Yet, 2 hours into day one, a
classful boundary has already been woven into it's DNA. Saying it's
No bit patterns in a V6 address indicate total size of a network. v6
doesn't bring classful addressing back or get rid of CIDR..
v6 dispenses with
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:40:40 -0400, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
I think it is both classless and classfull (although it's different
enough that we probably should stop using loaded IPv4 terms ...)
It's _classless_. There's none of this Class
On 7/10/2009, at 6:10 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
In the following I'm assuming that you're familiar with the fact
that
staying on the 4-byte boundaries makes sense because it makes
reverse
DNS delegation easier. It also makes the math easier.
I assume
On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
My understanding is that the RIRs are doing sparse allocation, as
opposed to reserving a few bits. I could be wrong.
Last I heard, with the exception of APNIC and contrary to what they
indicated they'd do prior to IANA allocating the /12s, you
On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:17 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
My understanding is that the RIRs are doing sparse allocation, as
opposed to reserving a few bits. I could be wrong.
Last I heard, with the exception of APNIC and contrary to what they
indicated
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-10/ts_burningquestion
-Hank
28 matches
Mail list logo
