--- jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
So my experience so far has been good product, good company, needs a real
attitude adjustment in the support department.
-
ditto that!
scott
On Mar 7, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Shon Elliott wrote:
> My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it.
>
> I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is
> really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four
> number
> dotted quad was
On Mar 7, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
>> have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
>> list has already examined how polluted the remaining
On Mar 6, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better
On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Chris Wallace wrote:
> I am hoping to get some peoples opinions on Alcatel-Lucent routers. We are
> looking at the 7750 SR line and the 7450 ESS line. We are currently a Cisco
> shop but these would be deployed in a completely new network delivering
> mostly MPLS ba
In message <4b92c9f7.4080...@unwiredbb.com>, Shon Elliott writes:
> My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it.
>
> I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is
> really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four numb
> er
Roy wrote:
> You missed an option. Just change to another ISP. I know of at least
> one AS701 address block still attached to a company that hasn't been
> their customer for ten years or so.
How is that possible? AFAIK no local politician has passed an IP
address portability law yet. If my
On 3/6/2010 12:23 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
...
I wanted service from AS701 with a V.35 hand-off; both requirements
(the ISP choice and the hand-off type) were/are for sentimental reasons.
Speed was/is a lower-priority concern, i.e., I was/am willing to live
with sub-T1 speeds if it allows me to
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:40:45 -0600
> From: Chris Boyd
> Subject: Re: Problem from Comcast Network to The Planet
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Message-ID: <5df52a7e-7288-433b-8b08-ea9530b29...@gizmopartners.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> I don't know what's g
On 3/6/10 1:32 PM, Shon Elliott wrote:
> My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it.
>
> I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is
> really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four
> number
> dotted quad was easy to re
In message <20100306184958.ga17...@mx.ytti.net>, Saku Ytti writes:
> On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> > Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
> > have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
> > list has already examined ho
My first reply to this thread. I've been kind of tracking it.
I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to say, is
really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where is a four number
dotted quad was easy to remember, an IPv6 address.. not so much. I wished they
Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> Isn't this really an issue (political) with tariffed T1 prices rather
> than a technical problem?
Yes, of course. It's even worse if you are tied to one particular ISP
(VZB) by non-portable IP addresses.
I wanted service from AS701 with a V.35 hand-off; both require
On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
> have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
> list has already examined how polluted the remaining free IPv4 blocks
> are ... and as others have pointed
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Dan White wrote:
> On 06/03/10 23:36 +1030, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>> On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
On 06/03/10 23:36 +1030, Mark Newton wrote:
On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
toward
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Joel Snyder wrote:
> Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>
>>Isn't this really an issue (political) with tariffed T1 prices rather
>>than a technical problem?
>
>>I was told that most T1s are provisioned over a DSLAM these days
>>anyways, and that the key difference between
On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
> On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
>>> trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
>>> toward dual-stack ;)
>>>
>>> Nice.
>>>
On 06/03/2010, at 1:06 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>> On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll
>>> quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space w
Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>Isn't this really an issue (political) with tariffed T1 prices rather
>than a technical problem?
>I was told that most T1s are provisioned over a DSLAM these days
>anyways, and that the key difference between T1 and DSL was the SLA
>(99.99% guarantee vs. "when we get
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:23:59AM +0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > IVI is stateless, which means it requires 1 to 1 IPv4 to IPv6 mapping.
> > NAT64 allows multiplexing.
> >
> I didn't fully understand it, but, Ma Yan presented IVI with multiplexing
> in a stateless environment at APNIC 29.
>
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
