On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 20:38 UTC, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>> > Did I mention I haven't implemented v6 yet? :-)
>>
>> No, you didn't. Perhaps you should spend some time learning about
>> it before you opine on how it should or should not be implemented.
>
> Perhaps. But that's
On 03/08/2011, at 11:25 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson"
>
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> Europe is a little odd in that way, especially DE and NO in that there
>>> seems to be this weird FUD running around claiming that sta
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:37:55 PDT, Joel Jaeggli said:
> there are 38453 ASes that appear in the DFZ this week and I don't see
> that number growing to 1 billion anytime soon.
Exactly. Right now, how many routes flap if Comcast drops a state's worth of
cable customers for a moment? What does *your*
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:00:37AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Also good for customer privacy. LE can still subpoena ISP logs, but
> e-commerce sites can't track users quite as easily.
So... you're in that alternate universe populated by people who *aren't*
constantly logged onto facebook. Goo
On 8/3/2011 5:32 PM, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> On 2011-08-03, at 3:50 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
>> On 8/3/2011 3:31 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> However, I AM seeing problems right now as described below...anybody
>>> aware of any Verizon issues?
>>
>> I was told by TATA one of their core
On 2011-08-03, at 3:50 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 8/3/2011 3:31 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
>>
>>
>> However, I AM seeing problems right now as described below...anybody
>> aware of any Verizon issues?
>
> I was told by TATA one of their core routers in NY is not reachable. So
> perhaps some
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
No, my point is that if you use RFC-4193, there's not really much benefit
from altering the prefix, so, nobody gets penalized and you can still have
static addresses.
[...]
If anyone is aware of any other widely-used applications in home/office
com
- Original Message -
> From: "Leo Vegoda"
> > *Really*? It bakes the endpoint MAC into the IP? Well, that's
> > miserably poor architecture design.
>
> The vast majority of people use Windows as an OS and Windows defaults
> to using RFC 4941 privacy extensions. I *think* it changes it ad
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> > Did I mention I haven't implemented v6 yet? :-)
>
> No, you didn't. Perhaps you should spend some time learning about
> it before you opine on how it should or should not be implemented.
Perhaps. But that's a SHOULD, not a MUST; it's possi
You wrote:
[...]
> > > c) outside parties *who are not the ISP or an LEO* will have a
> > > relatively harder time tying together two visits solely by the IP
> > > address.
> >
> > ROFL... Yeah, right... Because the MAC suffix won't do anything.
>
> Did I mention I haven't implemented v6 yet? :
On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> You guys aren't *near* paranoid enough. :-)
>>>
>>> If the ISP
>>>
>>> a) Assigns dynamic addresses to customers, and
>>> b) changes
On 8/3/2011 3:31 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
>
>
> However, I AM seeing problems right now as described below...anybody
> aware of any Verizon issues?
I was told by TATA one of their core routers in NY is not reachable. So
perhaps some inadvertent black hole routing between them / by them.
On 08/03/2011 11:14 AM, brun...@nic-naa.net wrote:
> Folks,
>
> In the never ending game of policy whack-a-mole, we are offered the claim that
> that the cost to a small to medium business to make its operational purpose
> v6 address enabled is in the mid-five figures.
>
> For those of you who do s
Hi,
Yeah, I was just seeing some issues through TATA (AS6453) with routes
being blackholed in Newark, or at least that was where the packets
stopped. I had to shut my peer with them and I just finished opening a
trouble ticket.
A traceroute to 209.167.35.0/24 from a source addr in 205.21
Please disregard my reply...I used pine for the first time in months and
although this was tagged as a New message, I didn't see the date was from
months ago.
However, I AM seeing problems right now as described below...anybody
aware of any Verizon issues?
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, James Smallac
I'm having issues through Verizon too...I have a server colocated in
Vancouver...could it be a Canadian thing with Verizon?
2 l100.phlapa-vfttp-60.verizon-gni.net (98.114.95.1) 8.910 ms 8.760 ms
7.026 ms
3 g3-0-2-860.phlapa-lcr-08.verizon-gni.net (130.81.139.120) 10.711 ms
8.466 ms 1
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > You guys aren't *near* paranoid enough. :-)
> >
> > If the ISP
> >
> > a) Assigns dynamic addresses to customers, and
> > b) changes those IPs on a relatively short scale (days)
> >
> > then
>
See: http://bgplay.routeviews.org/
It's up again, and actively updating.
We ran into a space crunch on the previous machine.
We now have the DB living on one of our stable RAID6
arrays.
Currently the data is from January 26, 2011 to present.
(it's finishing the data for 08/03/2011 right now...)
On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson"
>
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> Europe is a little odd in that way, especially DE and NO in that there
>>> seems to be this weird FUD running around claiming that sta
Folks,
In the never ending game of policy whack-a-mole, we are offered the claim that
that the cost to a small to medium business to make its operational purpose
v6 address enabled is in the mid-five figures.
For those of you who do smb consults, some numbers to make a hypothetical
shop consistin
Also good for customer privacy. LE can still subpoena ISP logs, but e-commerce
sites can't track users quite as easily.
-Bill
On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:55, "William Allen Simpson"
wrote:
> On 8/3/11 4:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I agree that autoconf is desirable. Now, ple
On 8/3/11 4:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I agree that autoconf is desirable. Now, please explain to me why it is
desirable for the address to change at random intervals from the customer
perspective? (i.e. why would one want dynamic rather than static auto
configuration?)
Because IPv6 was original
- Original Message -
> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson"
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Europe is a little odd in that way, especially DE and NO in that there
> > seems to be this weird FUD running around claiming that static addresses
> > are in some way more antithetical to pr
> > - Dynamic address: Customer connects PC (defaults to DHCP) or router/
> > firewall with DHCP for the WAN interface plus NAT for the LAN side.
> > Necessary configuration: Small to none.
>
> DHCP doesn't imply dynamic address. It implies customer doesn't have to
> configure an address him/he
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
- Dynamic address: Customer connects PC (defaults to DHCP) or router/
firewall with DHCP for the WAN interface plus NAT for the LAN side.
Necessary configuration: Small to none.
DHCP doesn't imply dynamic address. It implies customer doesn't have t
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Europe is a little odd in that way, especially DE and NO in that there
seems to be this weird FUD running around claiming that static addresses
are in some way more antithetical to privacy.
Yes, I agree. I know people who choose provider based on the ava
On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:04 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> Experience from IPv4 suggests otherwise. We (as an ISP) normally hand
>>> out dynamic IPv4 addresses to residential customers, and static IPv4
>>> addresses to business customers.
>>>
>>> - We have plenty of business customers who *want*
> > Experience from IPv4 suggests otherwise. We (as an ISP) normally hand
> > out dynamic IPv4 addresses to residential customers, and static IPv4
> > addresses to business customers.
> >
> > - We have plenty of business customers who *want* dynamic addresses,
> > even if static is available as a
On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:14 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>> 3) I think people do some of both. I think that if people can get static for
>> the
>> same price, they will choose static over dynamic. I think that some
>> will even choose to use their dynamic to run tunnels where they
>>
On Aug 2, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message
>
> , Blake Dunlap writes:
>> Or, alternately, don't care what your printer's ridiculously long IPv6 IP is
>> at this moment, (ULA/GUA/assigned: it really doesn't matter) and use mdns
>> like normal people. Otherwise we're ignoring
> 3) I think people do some of both. I think that if people can get static for
> the
> same price, they will choose static over dynamic. I think that some
> will even choose to use their dynamic to run tunnels where they
> can get static. You can get free static tunnels for IPv6
31 matches
Mail list logo
