On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> David Conrad writes:
>
>> whether either DEC or HP could have qualified for a /8 under current rules,
>> since the basis for these (pre-RIR) allocations was that they needed more
>> than a /1
Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 12:37 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
No, fix your site or I go elsewhere.
I'm pretty sure if it's between their use of session cookies
(RIPE_NCC_DB_SESSION) and you going elsewhere, they'll stick with using
the session cookies for the database. They could be a little les
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>
> On 10/02/2011, at 4:39 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>
>> In message , Jason Fesler
>> wri
>> tes:
In my recent probe of route servers, I found 22 legacy /8's that were
partly
>>>
or completely unused. I'm a little sur
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:35:42 GMT, Matthew Moyle-Croft said:
> That's an assertion I've heard, but has anyone quantified it? How much time
> and money would it take? Has anyone just asked the 22 /8 holders mentioned
> above nicely if they might just like to give them back for some good
> public
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> David Conrad writes:
> whether either DEC or HP could have qualified for a /8 under current rules,
> since the basis for these (pre-RIR) allocations was that they needed more
> than a /16 and these were the days before CIDR. (at the time i re
On 2/10/2011 12:42 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
Prefixes Originated (v6): 4
Why 4?
Click on the v6 prefixes tab and look at them. There's a US, Taiwan and
Europe /32's, and then one additional /48 out of the US /32.
Jack
On 2/10/2011 12:37 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
No, fix your site or I go elsewhere.
I'm pretty sure if it's between their use of session cookies
(RIPE_NCC_DB_SESSION) and you going elsewhere, they'll stick with using
the session cookies for the database. They could be a little less
sloppy, though
--- mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
From: Matthew Petach
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Fred Richards wrote:
> Mine is.
eh...not many.
http://bgp.he.net/AS10310
Prefixes Originated (v6): 4
Why 4?
scott
--- ios@gmail.com wrote:
From: Raul Rodriguez
http://www.ris.ripe.net/mt/asdashboard.html?as=26773
--
http://www.ris.ripe.net/mt/no_cookies.html?success_args=as;success_args=26773;success_url=%2Fmt%2Fasdashboard.html
"Please turn on the co
On 10/02/2011, at 4:39 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Jason Fesler
> wri
> tes:
>>> In my recent probe of route servers, I found 22 legacy /8's that were partly
>>
>>> or completely unused. I'm a little surprised ARIN/ICANN thinks it's a waste
>>
>>> of time to even try to reclaim
The problem is conversations like this:
AT&T Customer Service: "AT&T uVerse, how can I help you?"
Customer: "Yes, I have uVerse service and I'd like to get IPv6."
AT&T Customer Service: "I pea vee what? Is this a prank call?"
Owen
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> I'm not sure
I'm not sure what you mean -- once the ISP identifies CPE that works on
their network, couldn't early adopters who are interested in the technology
be pointed to a short list?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 20
In message , Jason Fesler wri
tes:
> > In my recent probe of route servers, I found 22 legacy /8's that were partly
>
> > or completely unused. I'm a little surprised ARIN/ICANN thinks it's a waste
>
> > of time to even try to reclaim them.
Because it is a waste of time and money.
> How lon
In my recent probe of route servers, I found 22 legacy /8's that were partly
or completely unused. I'm a little surprised ARIN/ICANN thinks it's a waste
of time to even try to reclaim them.
How long would that be tied up in legal issues before they were freed?
>
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:47:34 -0500, George Bonser
> wrote:
> > In other words, the broadband provider provides a single global IP
to
> > the "always up" CPE. That CPE does DHCP to user stations and hands
> out
> > 1918 addresses and NATs them to the single global IP.
>
> Correct. The dis
http://www.ris.ripe.net/mt/asdashboard.html?as=26773
>From http://lg.retn.net/
inet6.0: 4536 destinations, 6600 routes (4536 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
Restart Complete
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
A DestinationP Prf Metric 1 Metric 2 Next hopAS path
* 2607:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:42:14 -0500, Nathan Eisenberg
wrote:
What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing tables
that you get from your carriers? I'd argue that's no indication of
whether they're in use or not.
That's pretty much the definition of "in use". If they don't
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:47:34 -0500, George Bonser
wrote:
In other words, the broadband provider provides a single global IP to
the "always up" CPE. That CPE does DHCP to user stations and hands out
1918 addresses and NATs them to the single global IP.
Correct. The distinction you seem unwar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/09/2011 06:16 PM, Fred Richards wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> In message ,
>> Fred
>> Richards writes:
>>> I ran across this link a while back, it shows, of the top 100k
>>> websites (according to Alexa), w
David Conrad writes:
> I'm curious: when HP acquired the assets of Compaq (or when Compaq
> acquired the assets of Digital), is it your position that HP (or Compaq)
> "met the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly
> from the IR." for 16.0.0.0/8?
since i was the guy to d
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Looking at the recent exchange on the list re IPv6, it seems we are in the
> "whose fault is it?"
...
> Can we move on with the program and get to the bargaining phase?
Bargaining?
I'll trade you a v6 /32 for a v4 /16...
;-P
Matt
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Fred Richards wrote:
> Mine is.
> Well?
>
> --
> Fred
>
eh...not many.
http://bgp.he.net/AS10310
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the
>> existing {b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 reachability as
>> well since those will also be adding IPv6 capabilities in the next year or
>> two
- Original Message -
> From: "Charles N Wyble"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 3:57:23 PM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 status
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/09/2011 06:35 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> > Looking at the recent exchange on the lis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/09/2011 06:35 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Looking at the recent exchange on the list re IPv6, it seems we are in the
> "whose fault is it?"
>
> • Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
> • Anger (why is this happening to me ?)
> • B
I like that tool: http://bgp.he.net/AS55327
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Bates"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 3:41:41 PM
Subject: Re: Is your ASN advertising v6 prefixes?
On 2/9/2011 8:21 PM, Fred Richards wrote:
> Mine is.
> Well?
>
http://www.cidr-report.org
On 2/9/2011 8:21 PM, Fred Richards wrote:
Mine is.
Well?
http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=8025&view=2.0&v=6
Love that tool!
Jack
Looking at the recent exchange on the list re IPv6, it seems we are in the
"whose fault is it?"
• Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
• Anger (why is this happening to me ?)
• Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if ...)
• Depression (I don't care anymore)
• Acc
> I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so
> that
> individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
On the residential properties that $EMPLOYER provides triple play to, the nodes
behind each CPE can maintain up to 5 leases. And there are a few homes that
actuall
Mine is.
Well?
--
Fred
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message ,
> Fred
> Richards writes:
>> I ran across this link a while back, it shows, of the top 100k
>> websites (according to Alexa), which ones are IPv6 enabled:
>>
>> http://www.atoomnet.net/ipv6_enabled_popular_websites.php?complete
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
> individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
>
One huge reason to adopt ipv6.
--
Fred
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> My response then would be, ", I asked about it 6 months ago,
>> you're just not paying attention, now get me a product manager on the phone
>> so that I can bend their ear and make sure that I'm heard this time."
>
>
> --
> Jeff
>
>
What I c
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> My response then would be, ", I asked about it 6 months ago,
>> you're just not paying attention, now get me a product manager on the phone
>> so that I can bend their ear and make sure that I'm heard this time."
>
>
> --
> Jeff
>
>
What I c
I completely agree with Franck. If you wanted to try a new acme
thingamawidget on your network, what would you do? You'd probably
isolate it onto its own vlan, and assign a subnet. Route that subnet,
and then prevent access in either your L3 device or firewall if you
didn't want it interfering w
On 02/09/2011 08:38 PM, George Bonser wrote:
If you're not being heard by your vendor, you're not yelling loud
enough.
Or you aren't big enough of a customer. I was at one manufacturer
within the past few months and asked about the lack of v6 support at
layer 3 in one of their product lines a
In message , Will
iam Herrin writes:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby wrote:
> > I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surpr=
> ise
> > surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for it.
> >
> > I am however *terrified* of making
> If you're not being heard by your vendor, you're not yelling loud
> enough.
Or you aren't big enough of a customer. I was at one manufacturer
within the past few months and asked about the lack of v6 support at
layer 3 in one of their product lines as I had an application for that
line but th
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:18 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> Are you sure about that - I'm a comcast subscriber and see no signs
>> that I am being natted?
>>
>
> Josh, maybe it is different in different markets. When I had Comcast, I was
> behind a NAT.
>
>
>
George,
Perhaps I misunderstood you - I
In message <4d532aea.2090...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> > Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade
> > schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade NAT.
>
> ds-lite tends to be friendl
On 02/09/2011 07:32 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
The small to middle guys are at the mercy of the large guys applying
pressure to vendors.
I'm gonna just pick on this one thing.
This just isn't true.
I've always worked in small to middle sized shops, and I have always
found that I've been able to
In message <5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee0bc13...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com>, "
George Bonser" writes:
> >=20
> > > Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their
> customers.
> >=20
> > Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I
> > have
> > had has NATed me.
On 02/09/2011 07:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for
IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class
of home appliances will need its own subnet.
Huh? I don't think Comcast has stated what their plans on
On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 2/9/2011 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>> I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
>>> individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
>> Bridge only CPE's given
On 2/9/2011 6:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I don't think that networks with sub-6-figure buildouts are the ones we're too
worried about right now.
They can probably upgrade for sub-6-figure amounts.
sub-6-figure buildouts 15 years ago, is most likely over 6 figures
today. 7 figures probably won'
On 2/9/2011 6:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for
IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class
of home appliances will need its own subnet.
I wonder if their RIR justification was for /64 to household o
On 2/9/11 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.
>
> If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, I
> will
> be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
program committee would no doubt love to hear from you.
> Owe
On 2/9/2011 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
Bridge only CPE's given off this node.
1043 IP addresses handed out
1024 Unique
In message <4d531b52.70...@ispalliance.net>, Scott Helms writes:
> On 2/9/2011 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:00 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:
> >>
> >>> Scott Helms writes:
> >>>
> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily p
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:16 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long?
15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media you
>>>
>>> And at what point during that time did t
On 2/9/11 3:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their customers.
>
> Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I have
> had has NATed me. I had a "real" IP when I had dialup, but I got NAT
> when I went broadband. I have a f
In message <5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee0bc13...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com>, "
George Bonser" writes:
> > Cost's might be lower but service will be worse. NAT breaks a lot of
> > applications file sharing will not work properly and running your own
> > web server at home will not work properly. W
On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade
schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade NAT.
ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various tests, and is native v6.
Jack
In message , david rai
strick writes:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:
>
> > Scott Helms writes:
> >
> >> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
> >> layer 2 gear
> >
> > I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long?
> > 15years? 10yea
On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
Bridge only CPE's given off this node.
1043 IP addresses handed out
1024 Unique interfaces
Looks like customers aren't
Scott Helms writes:
> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
> layer 2 gear (usually DSLAMs that drop any frame with IPv6 in the
> EtherType field), inability to upgrade customer gear efficiently
> (again mainly a DSL problem where TR-069 isn't in use), and the
> re
On Feb 9, 2011, at 6:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:50 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I never thought it was that bad. In some 3G/wireless networks in
>>> Germany
>>> the providers use NAT and transparent HTTP-proxy. But this is only
>>> wireless. I'm not aware of any
>
> > Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their
customers.
>
> Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I
> have
> had has NATed me. I had a "real" IP when I had dialup, but I got NAT
> when I went broadband. I have a friend that has another service and
> Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their customers.
Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I have
had has NATed me. I had a "real" IP when I had dialup, but I got NAT
when I went broadband. I have a friend that has another service and she
is NATed t
> Unless every packet you emit is ¾ the minimum MTU (1280), then, you need
> to be able to receive TOOBIG messages.
Can you think of a packet type I will emit from my publically numbered
backbone interface which may solicit a TOOBIG that I'll have to care about?
I can only think of three cases,
On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:50 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> I never thought it was that bad. In some 3G/wireless networks in
>> Germany
>> the providers use NAT and transparent HTTP-proxy. But this is only
>> wireless. I'm not aware of any DSL or Cable provider NATing their
>> customers.
>>
>> Jens
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long?
15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media you
And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they could
purchase that -would- support v6?
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the existing
{b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 reachability as well since
those will also be adding IPv6 capabilities in the next year or two.
so your claim is that to have a .cat, serving registrants currently
On 2/9/2011 14:55, Scott Helms wrote:
> Absolutely, just as the ISPs didn't see demand, and don't today, from
> their users and thus the circle of blame is complete :)
>
And they never will. Their users demand "the internets", not a specific
version of some protocol that users don't care about.
On 2/9/2011 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:00 PM, david raistrick wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:
Scott Helms writes:
IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
layer 2 gear
I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming f
On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:00 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:
>
>> Scott Helms writes:
>>
>>> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
>>> layer 2 gear
>>
>> I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long?
>> 15ye
Try looking for the expanded terms:
Large Scale NAT
Carrier Grade NAT
NAT444
Owen
On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:58 AM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> For ISPs in this circumstance the choice will be CGNAT rather than IPv6 for
>> a number of years because the cost
On 2/9/2011 3:50 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
On 2/9/2011 4:36 PM, Ken A wrote:
10/8 is the management network on my cable modem. The cable modem
bridges your wan 'real' ip(s) through to your PC or router. At least
that's how Suddenlink does it here. The customer is normally 'locked
out' of the ca
On 2/9/2011 3:50 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
The smaller telcos are almost universally doing NAT as well providers
like Alltel, Centurytel, Frontier, Finepoint, as well as the smaller
ILEC's simply don't do bridging on their CPE gear since they seldom had
their DSLAMs set up to deal with Q-in-Q or i
On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> well, i've argued new gtld registry operators in general do not benefit from
> a manditory v6 reachability requirement at transition to delegation, a
> position unpopular with v6 evangelicals and others who suppose that new gtld
> reg
There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.
If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, I will
be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
Owen
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:
> With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby wrote:
>> I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surprise
>> surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for it.
>>
>> I am however *terrified* of
On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, David Freedman wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> On 9 feb 2011, at 18:30, David Freedman wrote:
>>
>>> (yes, even ICMP TOOBIG
>>> can be filtered safely if you have designed things in a sane way)
>>
>> NO.
>>
>> Even if you run with 1280-byte MTUs everywhere s
On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:30 AM, David Freedman wrote:
> I think the solution to all of these problems is really to use public
> addressing but filter access to it at your edge (yes, even ICMP TOOBIG
> can be filtered safely if you have designed things in a sane way)
>
Filtering ICMP TOOBIG is actual
On 2/9/11 1:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> Most IPv4 space is unused anyway, but it's not being reclaimed much
>> despite that. (How many IP addresses does the US federal government
>> need? Few people would think ~ 10 /8s. Especially since many of
>> them aren't even lit up.)
>
> What do you m
On 2/9/2011 4:36 PM, Ken A wrote:
10/8 is the management network on my cable modem. The cable modem
bridges your wan 'real' ip(s) through to your PC or router. At least
that's how Suddenlink does it here. The customer is normally 'locked
out' of the cable modem, unlike a dsl modem. The large
> Most IPv4 space is unused anyway, but it's not being reclaimed much despite
> that. (How many IP addresses does the US federal government need? Few
> people would think ~ 10 /8s. Especially since many of them aren't even lit
> up.)
What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing t
On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:35 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
>
>
> On 9 Feb 2011, at 02:43, "R. Benjamin Kessler"
> wrote:
>
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
>>
"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I was consulting for a financial s
On 2/9/2011 3:17 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Hmm, I am not aware of Comcast (or any other large MSO) doing any NAT
on
large scale. Having said that almost all of the DSL customers in the
US
are being NAT'ed, but on the edge device (DSL modem) rather than in
the
core.
--
Scott Helms
Vice Presid
On 9 feb 2011, at 21:26, William Herrin wrote:
>> You're kidding, right? How long did it take exactly to get where
>> we are now with IPv6? 18, 19 years?
> Tech like carrier NAT theoretically yeilds address reclamation in
> excess of 80%.
Most IPv4 space is unused anyway, but it's not being recl
>
> Comcast, like all(?) DOCSIS systems uses 10/8 or one of the other
> defined non-routable blocks for cable modems, which (if its a DOCSIS
> certified device) will be a bridge only and will not do NAT. If you
> we're NAT'ed on a cable modem system it must have been a proprietary
> system, of wh
George,
Comcast, like all(?) DOCSIS systems uses 10/8 or one of the other
defined non-routable blocks for cable modems, which (if its a DOCSIS
certified device) will be a bridge only and will not do NAT. If you
we're NAT'ed on a cable modem system it must have been a proprietary
system, of w
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Crooks, Sam wrote:
>
>> Is it permissible, from a policy perspective, for a multi-homed end user
>> to announce the numbering resource allocation received from one RIR (for
>> discussion purposes, let's say ARIN) to upstream se
"Crooks, Sam" writes:
> Is it permissible, from a policy perspective, for a multi-homed end user
> to announce the numbering resource allocation received from one RIR (for
> discussion purposes, let's say ARIN) to upstream service providers in a
> different region (for example, in the RIPE regio
In a message written on Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:59:31PM -0600, Crooks, Sam
wrote:
> Is it permissible, from a policy perspective, for a multi-homed end user
> to announce the numbering resource allocation received from one RIR (for
> discussion purposes, let's say ARIN) to upstream service provide
> Are you sure about that - I'm a comcast subscriber and see no signs
> that I am being natted?
>
Josh, maybe it is different in different markets. When I had Comcast, I was
behind a NAT.
>
> You mean they provide CPE which does NAT? Or the CPE actually has a
> RFC1918 address on the WAN?
Correct, the CPE does NAT. But regardless, the user's platform (and
hence all the applications running on it) are going through a dynamic
NAT.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Crooks, Sam wrote:
Is it permissible, from a policy perspective, for a multi-homed end user
to announce the numbering resource allocation received from one RIR (for
discussion purposes, let's say ARIN) to upstream service providers in a
different region (for example, in the R
> Hmm, I am not aware of Comcast (or any other large MSO) doing any NAT
> on
> large scale. Having said that almost all of the DSL customers in the
> US
> are being NAT'ed, but on the edge device (DSL modem) rather than in
the
> core.
>
> --
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ISP Alli
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:50 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> I never thought it was that bad. In some 3G/wireless networks in
>> Germany
>> the providers use NAT and transparent HTTP-proxy. But this is only
>> wireless. I'm not aware of any DSL or Cable provider NATing their
>> customers.
>>
>> Jens
Is it permissible, from a policy perspective, for a multi-homed end user
to announce the numbering resource allocation received from one RIR (for
discussion purposes, let's say ARIN) to upstream service providers in a
different region (for example, in the RIPE region)?
Is it feasible from a pra
> Practically all broadband providers NAT their customers in the US. If
> you look at the largest ones which are probably Comcast, Verizon, and
> AT&T, you have the majority of US broadband subscribers right there.
You mean they provide CPE which does NAT? Or the CPE actually has a
RFC1918 addres
On 2/9/2011 3:50 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Practically all broadband providers NAT their customers in the US. If
you look at the largest ones which are probably Comcast, Verizon, and
AT&T, you have the majority of US broadband subscribers right there.
Hmm, I am not aware of Comcast (or any
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 14:52 +, Tim Chown wrote:
> Which of the big boys are doing it?
Unsure of how big they are in the grand scheme, but I use Dreamhost.
They quietly started offering IPv6 on all accounts about a week ago.
-S.
>
> I never thought it was that bad. In some 3G/wireless networks in
> Germany
> the providers use NAT and transparent HTTP-proxy. But this is only
> wireless. I'm not aware of any DSL or Cable provider NATing their
> customers.
>
> Jens
Practically all broadband providers NAT their customers in
On 2/9/2011 2:17 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
But just CGNAT with no IPv6 is going to be very bad. Maybe 95% of
your users won't notice, but do you really want the other 5% to tie
up your support lines?
Yes, as that will cause them to produce an IPv6 product for those
customers (even if i
- Original Message -
> From: "Jason Bertoch"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 9:09:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> On 2011/02/09 2:44 PM, Jens Link wrote:
> No, IPv6 rollout is going to be extremely expensive and will likely
> put
> a numb
On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
>> compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This
>> means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to b
"George Bonser" writes:
> While that is true, it is no worse than the situation right now. In the
> US, the vast majority of users are already behind a NAT (I would say
> over 90% of them are) so they are already experiencing this breakage.
I never thought it was that bad. In some 3G/wireless
On 9 feb 2011, at 21:23, George Bonser wrote:
> While that is true, it is no worse than the situation right now. In the
> US, the vast majority of users are already behind a NAT (I would say
> over 90% of them are) so they are already experiencing this breakage.
There's a big difference betwee
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
