On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
So I agree with you that there is still a risk that this is going to
get screwed up, but I don't feel too gloomy yet.
yep. but we dis some wisp hacker for saying so. not cool.
I have to admit I never read the forum text so I don't know exactly what
w
> So I agree with you that there is still a risk that this is going to
> get screwed up, but I don't feel too gloomy yet.
yep. but we dis some wisp hacker for saying so. not cool.
randy
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once
though 32 bits was humongous.
Giving out a /48 to every person on earth uses approximately 2^33
networks, meaning we could cram it into a /15. So even if we have 10 /48s
at home from d
On 9/16/12, Randy Bush wrote:
> and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once
> though 32 bits was humongous.
[snip]
When you consider that IPv6 is a 64-bit address space, that is 64
bits are for addressing subnetworks, the "/64 spend" for
addressing hosts within a net
On 09/16/2012 08:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once though 32 bits was humongous. randy
No we didn't .
Mike
[ yes, there are a lot of idiots out there. this is not new. but ]
> "We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of
> addresses will remanifest themselves once again and likely sooner than
> a lot of us might expect given the "Reccomendations" for "Best
> Practice" deployme
Masataka Ohta :
>Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
>>> Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
>>> as ND, will suffer.
>>
>> ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
>> network - in your humble opinion?
>
>Because, with IPv4:
>
> 1) broadcast/
On Sep 16, 2012 6:58 PM, "John R. Levine" wrote:
>>>
>>> IPv6 has its problems, but running out of addresses is not one of them.
>>> For those of us worried about abuse management, the problem is the
>>> opposite, even the current tiny sliver of addresses is so huge that
>>> techniques from IPv4 t
On 9/16/12, John R. Levine wrote:
> Large networks keep separate reputation for every address in the IPv4
> address space based on the traffic they send. You can't do that in IPv6,
That's true, but not an intended system for identifying and reporting abuse,
and the same idea occurs with IPv4 --
IPv6 has its problems, but running out of addresses is not one of them.
For those of us worried about abuse management, the problem is the
opposite, even the current tiny sliver of addresses is so huge that
techniques from IPv4 to map who's doing what where don't scale.
Well, in IPv4... NAT bro
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
>> as ND, will suffer.
>
> ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
> network - in your humble opinion?
Because, with IPv4:
1) broadcast/multicast from a STA attacked
On 9/16/12, John Levine wrote:
> IPv6 has its problems, but running out of addresses is not one of them.
> For those of us worried about abuse management, the problem is the
> opposite, even the current tiny sliver of addresses is so huge that
> techniques from IPv4 to map who's doing what where d
>> If I am understanding this quote correctly the author is worried IPv6
>> will run out of addresses so won't make the switch... Granted only 1/8th
>> of the IPv6 space has been allocated for internet use but that number is
>> still so mind-boggling _huge_..
>
>I would suggest it's irrational thi
On 9/16/12, John Mitchell wrote:
> If I am understanding this quote correctly the author is worried IPv6
> will run out of addresses so won't make the switch... Granted only 1/8th
> of the IPv6 space has been allocated for internet use but that number is
> still so mind-boggling _huge_..
I would
On 16/09/2012 19:30, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
> as ND, will suffer.
ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
network - in your humble opinion?
Nick
Very good points. Having been in the WISP industry for more than 10
years
now. I know WISPs who have thousands of customers and only 1 or 2 class C
addresses. The need for public routable IP addresses is not that much of
a concern for them. Plus, a good majority of WISP equipment does no
Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Well, yes, but that wasn't what Bill was talking about. He was talking about
> AP's being "nice" to associated clients who are in powersave mode, at the
> expensive of all the other connected clients, by buffering multicast packets
> until one or more DTIM frames are sent.
Let me shed some light here. (Being familiar with both
communities... Nanog and WISP's )
WISP's are a very special breed of folks. There are a few common
attributes that one has to recognize about them.
1. Most WISP's are not Technical Folks. (Most of them are Farmers or
from other total
On 14/09/2012 12:38, Paul Thornton wrote:
> Veering slightly off-topic for NANOG, but is this worth taking onto the
> address policy mailing list ahead of RIPE65 to ensure people who aren't in
> the WG session are aware of the issue - and can therefore support (or
> question) any proposed changes?
We should support dual stack, as someone may stop supporting
IPv4 in addition to IPv6, because dual stack costs so much. :-)
Masataka Ohta
On 9/16/12 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
> some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
> if these are the people providing internet access to end users. We focus
> our worries on the big guys like
You will always have someone who doesn't understand. But every network operator
should have a sense of responsibility to learn IPv6 and implement dual
stacking. To be honest, in 2004/2005 I decided not to dive into IPv6 heavily
but everyone has a "wake up" call. All we can do is keep stressing t
There are some pretty impressive quotes there to take away ..
>"We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of
addresses will remanifest >themselves once again and likely sooner than
a lot of us might expect given the "Reccomendations" for >"Best
Practice" deployment."
I
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012, John T. Yocum wrote:
Wow... my brain hurts after reading that. The saddest part is, there are
folks with IPv6 allocations that simply refuse to implement dual stack.
Agreed. I'm dual-stacked at work, and things work just fine. The only
gripe I heard when dual-stack was
On 9/16/12 10:06 AM, John T. Yocum wrote:
>
>
> On 9/16/2012 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
>> some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
>> if these are the people providing internet access to
On 9/16/2012 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
if these are the people providing internet access to end users. We focus
our worries on the big guys like A
I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
if these are the people providing internet access to end users. We focus
our worries on the big guys like AT&T going IPv6 (which I'm sure but
they're slow
On 9/16/12 9:24 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya"
So you're *REALLY* motivated on this "reduce the coverage" thing,
then.
you could say yes :), reduce the coverage per-AP. Most APs I have seen
will start failing with about ~100 associations and n
- Original Message -
> From: "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya"
> > So you're *REALLY* motivated on this "reduce the coverage" thing,
> > then.
>
> you could say yes :), reduce the coverage per-AP. Most APs I have seen
> will start failing with about ~100 associations and not to forget
> about the ma
- Original Message -
> From: "Masataka Ohta"
> Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > You're saying that *receiving* multicast streams over WLAN works
> > poorly?
>
> Multicast/broadcast over congested WLAN works poorly, because
> there can be no ACK.
>
> That is, multicast/broadcast packets lost by c
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:15:26PM -0400
Quoting Eric Adler (eapt...@gmail.com):
> Are you working with locally originated video or video that originates as
> DVB-T?
>
> I'm looking at a similar project to replace NTSC distribution around the
> facility wher
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 01:11:54PM -0500
Quoting Jimmy Hess (mysi...@gmail.com):
> On 9/15/12, Masataka Ohta wrote: >
> Mans Nilsson wrote:
>
> >> I am not suggesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there
> >> might be a bunch of assumptions that a
32 matches
Mail list logo
