On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Lorenzo Colitti
wrote:
> I don't think that's a useful argument to make, since you are also saying
> that you know better.
>
Seriously, this is how you are going to respond? You are claiming you know
what is best for everyone and I am telling you that I know is
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote:I
claim that there is a platform bug, because there is never a reason to
>
> ignore the WiFi RA. Use the other flag to set a preference if that is
> needed, but ignoring the RA just breaks things in unexpected ways. LC has
> did a hand-wave that the
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance as I don't currently have field experience with
>> 464xlat, but my understanding of the technique is that it is (for the most
>> part) dependent on the network cooperating (by providing a DNS64 and NAT64)
>> for it to wor
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mikael
> Abrahamsson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:39 PM
> To: Chris Adams
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> > Androi
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> RFC 3315 says you just chuck in multiple IA_NA (or IA_TA) options. The
> server will respond with multiple addresses.
>
> And if a device makes a second (, third, fourth, ..) request with a
> different DUID, it'll get a second (,third, fourth,.
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Jon Bane wrote:
Isn't that the problem of the network operator? To know and accept the
tradeoffs for how they operate their network? If this theory that
DHCPv6 is going to break the world comes true, then the operators will
adjust their methods. Personally, I find operat
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson
wrote:
> What would you find acceptable behaviour from a device that finds itself
> on a wifi network that only gives it a single DHCPv6 IA_NA ? That some apps
> silently stop working because 464XLAT doesn't work, that it throws up a
> splash sc
In message <5577c6be.6020...@mtcc.com>, Michael Thomas writes:
> On 06/09/2015 08:37 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 23:09 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> >> How does the device ask for a *second* DHCPv6'ed address for tethering or
> >> whatever?
> > RFC 3315 says you just c
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Chris Adams wrote:
Android devices (Samsung and LG) upgraded to Lollipop, I no longer have
functioning IPv6 on wifi. They connect and get an address (with privacy
extensions even), but do not install an IPv6 default route. They can
talk to local IPv6 devices, but not the In
On Wed 2015-Jun-10 12:01:52 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Clients should support a verity of methods and let network operators choose
the solution that fits the environment. The whole premise for not
supporting DHCPv6 seems to be that mobil
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Jon Bane wrote:
When I build something I want people to use, I tend to put in the
features they need and want so they continue to use it. It is crystal
clear here and in the bug post, that people need DHCPv6 on WiFi. We
don't need your guiding hand to protect us from ourse
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 08:37 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 23:09 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>
>>> How does the device ask for a *second* DHCPv6'ed address for tethering or
>>> whatever?
>>>
>> RFC 3315 says you just chuck in m
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Ooo, that's fun, can I play too?
>
> BGP - RFC 4271 - DRAFT STANDARD
> USM for SNMPv3 - RFC 3414 - INTERNET STANDARD
>
The difference being, my references were actually relevant to the
discussion and a direct response to your arguments. S
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Michael Thomas wrote:
Wouldn't the right thing to do is have the provider support dhcp prefix
delegation, and the tether can run dhcp for its clients? (or even
slaac?)
Do you think the people who insist on wanting to use DHCPv6 IA_NA will
instead be fine with DHCPv6 IA_PD
On 06/09/2015 08:37 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 23:09 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
How does the device ask for a *second* DHCPv6'ed address for tethering or
whatever?
RFC 3315 says you just chuck in multiple IA_NA (or IA_TA) options. The
server will respond with multiple
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Jon Bane wrote:
>
> DHCPv6 - RFC3315 - Category: Standards Track
> 464XLAT - RFC6877 - Category: Informational
>
Ooo, that's fun, can I play too?
BGP - RFC 4271 - DRAFT STANDARD
USM for SNMPv3 - RFC 3414 - INTERNET STANDARD
Of course I've been up too long, ignore the idiot (me). :)
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> Most APs don't support bridging, not enough addresses in the protocol
> (without enabling WDS or whatever modern versions of that are).
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Chris Adams
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:14:54 -0500, Chris Adams said:
> Once upon a time, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said:
> > On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:47 +1000, Karl Auer said:
> > > Hope the question doesn't make me look like an idiot, but why does using
> > > stateful DHCPv6 mean having to go back to NAT?
> >
>
Most APs don't support bridging, not enough addresses in the protocol
(without enabling WDS or whatever modern versions of that are).
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said:
> > On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:47 +1000, Karl Auer said:
> >
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:47 +1000, Karl Auer said:
>> > Hope the question doesn't make me look like an idiot, but why does using
>> > stateful DHCPv6 mean having to go back to NAT?
>>
>> How
On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 23:09 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> How does the device ask for a *second* DHCPv6'ed address for tethering or
> whatever?
RFC 3315 says you just chuck in multiple IA_NA (or IA_TA) options. The
server will respond with multiple addresses.
And if a device makes a sec
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said:
> > On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:47 +1000, Karl Auer said:
> > > Hope the question doesn't make me look like an idiot, but why does
> using
> > > stateful DHCPv6 mean having to go back to NAT?
> >
>
Once upon a time, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:47 +1000, Karl Auer said:
> > Hope the question doesn't make me look like an idiot, but why does using
> > stateful DHCPv6 mean having to go back to NAT?
>
> How does the device ask for a *second* DHCPv6'ed address for te
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:47 +1000, Karl Auer said:
> On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 11:48 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > With stateful DHCPv6 addressing, we're back to using NAT again.
>
> Hope the question doesn't make me look like an idiot, but why does using
> stateful DHCPv6 mean having to go back t
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> At the end of the day, I see Androids refusal to implement DHCPv6 as about
> the same level of stupidity as Apple’s refusal to implement 464XLAT in iOS.
>
Based on the facts, you could could just as well say that Apple is trying
to advance th
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Clients should support a verity of methods and let network operators choose
> the solution that fits the environment. The whole premise for not
> supporting DHCPv6 seems to be that mobile networks don't need it, but that
> totally ignores 802.1
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 11:48 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> With stateful DHCPv6 addressing, we're back to using NAT again.
Hope the question doesn't make me look like an idiot, but why does using
stateful DHCPv6 mean having to go back to NAT?
Regards, K.
--
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=32621
>
> It looks like one developer simply refuses to implement it because if he
> did there might be a scenario where somebody might not be able to tether
> 8-/?
That sounds pretty stu
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> a researcher i know and respect asked a bunch of ops what features that
> used. the researcher finally said something similar to "operators seem
> to actually use all those kinky knobs and protocols."
>
> for any kink you can imagine, someone do
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:19:23 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said:
> Didn't we have a very amusing afternoon a number of years ago when $VENDOR
> did exactly that with some invalid routing data? Or am I mis-remembering
> history, and therefor doomed to mis-repeat it?
Actually, it was collusion. $V
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:09:45 -0400, David Mandelberg said:
> I don't think there's an update issue here. The crypto verification is
> probably going to be deferred in addition to being low priority. If I
> understand it correctly, this means that a route can be passed along
> right away without wai
a researcher i know and respect asked a bunch of ops what features that
used. the researcher finally said something similar to "operators seem
to actually use all those kinky knobs and protocols."
for any kink you can imagine, someone does it. there are operators who
have even deployed ipv6 :)
I/we (Philip and I) attempted to keep the question as generic as
possible, allowing folks to state the IGPs they use, in whichever
combination or in some cases (as we can see), more complex deployments.
I would agree with statements form Joel earlier with respect to cases
where early vendor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi John,
Great contribution. Thanks
Might I make a suggestion? with the following command it gives Invalid CIDR. In
my usage it would seem logically convenient to throw any quad octet at it and
have it translate to the proper CIDR range that isn’
Hi Randy,
On Jun 9, 2015, at 18:08, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Routers makes more sense to me than networks (IGP, so one network,
>> right?)
>
> so you are thinking of a network where half the routers run is-is one
> quarter ospf/ospfv2 and one quarter ospf/ripv3. right.
No, not at all. I thought Vi
On 2015-06-05 02:40, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On 5 Jun 2015, at 10:56, David Mandelberg wrote:
Could you elaborate on your enumeration and DDoS concerns?
Crypto = more overhead. Less priority to crypto plus DDoS = routing
update issues.
I don't think there's an update issue here. The crypto v
>> Think of scenarios where you have mergers/acquisitions where
>> different portions of the now amalgamated network were designed
>> differently and there may be too much pain or require too much time
>> to redesign rather than bolt together and redistribute.
> But in that case, don't they usually
On 6/9/15 2:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9 Jun 2015, at 16:23, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> If you have a production dual-stack network, then we would like to know
>
>> and we wonder at the pitiful ipv6 deployment.
>
> if more network admins actually did network stuff then IPv6
> deployment would be plentiful and we could even start the
> discussion about turning off IPv4 ;-)
and cash would fall from the sky
we are currently in the cycle where net ops
> Routers makes more sense to me than networks (IGP, so one network,
> right?)
so you are thinking of a network where half the routers run is-is one
quarter ospf/ospfv2 and one quarter ospf/ripv3. right.
there was a very large provider that had one is-is leven-2 across many
bgp confederations.
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:55:31 -, Sameer Khosla said:
> Think of scenarios where you have mergers/acquisitions where different
> portions of the now amalgamated network were designed differently and there
> may
> be too much pain or require too much time to redesign rather than bolt
> together
At the end of the day, I see Androids refusal to implement DHCPv6 as about the
same level of stupidity as Apple’s refusal to implement 464XLAT in iOS.
Both companies need to pull their heads out of their asses.
Further, the cellular companies would do well to be more adaptive to the
capabilitie
Think of scenarios where you have mergers/acquisitions where different portions
of the now amalgamated network were designed differently and there may be too
much pain or require too much time to redesign rather than bolt together and
redistribute.
Sk.
-Original Message-
that confuses
Once upon a time, Doug Clements said:
> If you think this is stupid, look in to the situation for modern WiFi and
> Android.
Haven't bothered to see if there's a bug (since my experience with
Android and Google bug reports was a waste of time), but since my
Android devices (Samsung and LG) upgrad
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
> On 9 Jun 2015, at 16:23, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
If you have a production dual-stack network, then we would like to know
which IGP you use to route IPv4 and which you use to r
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Joel Maslak wrote:
>
>> Agreed - apparently the solution is to implement SLAAC + DNS advertisements
>> *AND* DHCPv6. Because you need SLAAC + DNS advertisements for Android, and
>> you need DHCPv6 for Windows.
>>
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:27:31 -0600, Joel Maslak said:
> Agreed - apparently the solution is to implement SLAAC + DNS advertisements
> *AND* DHCPv6. Because you need SLAAC + DNS advertisements for Android, and
> you need DHCPv6 for Windows.
>
> Am I the only one that thinks this situation is stupid
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Doug Clements wrote:
>
> - Most WPA2-Enterprise schemes are sullied with warnings about traffic
> being monitored as a response to private CAs being installed.
I had this issue at the last NANOG meeting, I sometimes share my wifi with an
embedded platform connecte
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Joel Maslak wrote:
Agreed - apparently the solution is to implement SLAAC + DNS advertisements
*AND* DHCPv6. Because you need SLAAC + DNS advertisements for Android, and
you need DHCPv6 for Windows.
Am I the only one that thinks this situation is stupid?
You don't need to
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> Agreed - apparently the solution is to implement SLAAC + DNS advertisements
> *AND* DHCPv6. Because you need SLAAC + DNS advertisements for Android, and
> you need DHCPv6 for Windows.
>
> Am I the only one that thinks this situation is stupid?
Hi,
> Agreed - apparently the solution is to implement SLAAC + DNS advertisements
> *AND* DHCPv6. Because you need SLAAC + DNS advertisements for Android, and
> you need DHCPv6 for Windows.
Windows has been dealing with SLAAC for ages...and OSX... DHCPv6 is
relatively new in that arena...
howe
On 9 Jun 2015, at 16:23, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> If you have a production dual-stack network, then we would like to know
>>> which IGP you use to route IPv4 and which you use to route IPv6.
>>
>> in one network, both ospfs. in another i
Agreed - apparently the solution is to implement SLAAC + DNS advertisements
*AND* DHCPv6. Because you need SLAAC + DNS advertisements for Android, and
you need DHCPv6 for Windows.
Am I the only one that thinks this situation is stupid?
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i love
Hi,
> and we wonder at the pitiful ipv6 deployment.
if more network admins actually did network stuff then IPv6
deployment would be plentiful and we could even start the
discussion about turning off IPv4 ;-)
alan
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> If you have a production dual-stack network, then we would like to know
>> which IGP you use to route IPv4 and which you use to route IPv6.
>
> in one network, both ospfs. in another is-is. i recommend the latter.
>
>> We would also like to kn
[ Forwarding today's announcement, apologies for duplicates ]
---
Hi Everyone!
PeeringDB is rolling our the first major revision since its inception,
PeeringDB 2.0. This email will explain the basics, and how you can learn
more information if you are interested.
Future Communication
> If you have a production dual-stack network, then we would like to know
> which IGP you use to route IPv4 and which you use to route IPv6.
in one network, both ospfs. in another is-is. i recommend the latter.
> We would also like to know roughly how many routers are running this
> combinatio
i love this discussion. another enterprise wants to use ipv4 with
minimal change from ipv4, has problems, and the usual suspects tell
them to drink koolaid.
and we wonder at the pitiful ipv6 deployment.
randy
Hi,
> supporting DHCPv6 seems to be that mobile networks don't need it, but that
> totally ignores 802.11 which is equally important.
...and what about 802.3 for those Android boxes/systems on the wired? :-)
> I would hope we're past the religious arguments of SLAAC vs DHCPv6 but it
> seems like
It really is too bad. They're literally the only major player not on board
but claim to champion IPv6.
There is a big difference between saying that something isn't supported and
the Android position that they will NOT support DHCPv6. To me, that's
something that shouldn't be a decision they get
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 09:22 , Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> On 6/8/2015 11:35 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
We're in the beginning steps of bringing up IPv6 at the fairly large
university where I work. We plan to use DHCPv6 rather than
I've updated grepcidr again, adding some code contributed by a user.
(This open source thing may actually have a future.)
grepcidr is what it sounds like, you give it a bunch of CIDR ranges,
and files to read, and it prints out the lines in the files that
contain addresses that match any of the CI
Hello NANOG Folks -
Apologies for the distraction, but ARIN needs some transit providers and I
thought
there may be one or two on this list...
We need 1 GB via standard multi-mode fiber in Wowrack/Seattle - ISP must
provide
native IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, provide full view of
On 6/8/2015 11:35 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
We're in the beginning steps of bringing up IPv6 at the fairly large
university where I work. We plan to use DHCPv6 rather than SLAAC for a
variety of reasons. One of our guys recently noticed tha
Nanog Folks:
Philip Matthews and I are co-authors on an active draft within the IETF
related to IPv6 routing design choices. To ensure we are gathering
sufficient data we are looking for an expanded set of input from
operator forums as well (vs. just the v6ops IETF list). The draft is
found
On 9 Jun 2015, at 5:11, Martin T wrote:
At a brute force country level it is possible to use the Delegated
ranges lists but that runs into the problem where IP ranges are
subnetted and allocated to other countries.
Yeah.
I would say that a perfectly accurate mapping of address to anything
g
> From a standards perspective keep in mind that
> http://www.stupi.se/Standards/100G-long-haul4.pdf is not approved -
> but we are working hard on it. OTOH having a reference
> implementation at hand, is an accelerator that helps a lot.
There is a whole industry that do not want it to be plug and
Hi Mikael,
>From a standards perspective keep in mind that
>http://www.stupi.se/Standards/100G-long-haul4.pdf is not approved - but we
>are working hard on it. OTOH having a reference implementation at hand, is an
>accelerator that helps a lot.
Let me also add some color to your email as the
I'm new to this list, and I apologize in advance if this is an
inappropriate submission.
I'm having an issue with my traffic routing between my network and Comcast
in the Georgia region. Aside from this specific ISP and that geographic
region, I haven't seen any issues with traffic. My network is
Junos OS Subscriber Management?
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.1/information-products/pathway-pages/subscriber-access/index.html
--
Eduardo Schoedler
2015-06-07 3:19 GMT-03:00 Nasser Heidari :
> Hi,
>
> We are currently using PPPoE in our network. I have seen some articles
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:30:48AM +0100, Alan Buxey wrote:
>
>> Care to elaborate on the reasons?
>
> Heh, there's a reason I said "variety" ;). Honestly, I'm like 90% systems
> and 10% network, our network guys could probably better explain
Thus spake Paul B. Henson (hen...@acm.org) on Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 08:14:54PM
-0700:
> We're in the beginning steps of bringing up IPv6 at the fairly large
> university where I work.
Ditto.
> We plan to use DHCPv6 rather than SLAAC for a variety of reasons.
Those reasons should probably be re
Does anybody knows anything about "AirTight networks" and "Meru"?
On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Yardiel D. Fuentes wrote:
This discussion is always reminisced of questions such as: Why would I
want to learn Algebra or Calculus in college ? or why would I want to go
to college at all ? .. the student argues that calculus or college is
hardly ever used, if at all, in a
John,
> At a brute force country level it is possible to use the Delegated
> ranges lists but that runs into the problem where IP ranges are
> subnetted and allocated to other countries.
Yeah.
In addition, to illustrate the point in my initial post, sometimes
inetnum objects contain more than on
I (sortakinda related to the as-drifted thread) was reminded today of
another flag I watched for back in the day by something I saw on
Facebook™ today--people using words (especially big words) that do not
mean what they think they do.
http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/6/8/8748933/pat-vendit
On 6/8/2015 08:46, Jay Farrell via NANOG wrote:
The article is nothing more or less than what you'd expect to read from the
American Enterprise Institute. "All regulation totally sucks" is their only
message ever.
Unaddressed so far, is the appearance that the regulator quoted (without
apparen
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:30:48AM +0100, Alan Buxey wrote:
> Care to elaborate on the reasons?
Heh, there's a reason I said "variety" ;). Honestly, I'm like 90% systems
and 10% network, our network guys could probably better explain all of
the underlying thought process. My primary task on the d
'Don't learn by heart that which you can look up.' apart from enough
basics to get you up and connected so that you CAN look things up! ;)
There's a whole debate about the education system and learning things by rote
that can be looked up. In many sectors you have reference tomes. ..some
79 matches
Mail list logo