Re: /27 the new /24

In message <520ce953-012c-4599-a85b-69517e090...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman w rites: >> >> >> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> >> In message , Matthew >> Kaufman w >> rites: >>> >>> On Oct 7, 2015, at

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 10/03/2015 08:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > So a /48 isn’t about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 > devices in every home, it’s about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask > to use in delegating addresses in a dynamic plug-and-play hierarchical > topology that can evolve

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

In message <56157950.5040...@lugosys.com>, "Israel G. Lugo" writes: > > On 10/03/2015 08:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > So a /48 isn’t about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 > > devic > es in every home, it’s about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask to > use > in

Re: /27 the new /24

Here is a quick starting point for filtering IPv6 on a Linux host system if you don't feel comfortable opening up all ICMPv6 traffic: http://soucy.org/tmp/v6firewall/ip6tables.txt I haven't really re-visited it in a while, so if I'm forgetting something let me know. On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:13

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > I don't have to. I'm sure some AG will do so soon enough. There's always an optimist around. Good luck with that. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone)

Re: /27 the new /24

We know. I recommend you read the whole thread before reacting. -mel beckman > On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: >> >> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it

Re: Android and DHCPv6 again

Den 07/10/2015 03.09 skrev "Bruce Horth" : > > Your device may be getting an address, but without a recursive DNS server it may be useless. It is dual stack. You will get DNS info via DHCPv4. Regards Baldur

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > On 10/04/2015 06:40 AM, Matthias Leisi wrote: >> Fully agree. But the current state of IPv6 outside "professional“ >> networks/devices is sincerely limited by a lot of poor CPE and >> consumer device implementations. >

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Mel Beckman wrote: > >> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to >> support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. > > Go tell cisco that. IIRC, the first

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to > support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. Not true. IPSec is recommended, not mandatory. This change was made in favor of

Re: /27 the new /24

In message , Matthew Kaufman w rites: > > > > On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Instead, the followup question is needed=E2=80=A6 =E2=80=9CThat=E2=80=99s g > = > reat, but how does that help

Re: /27 the new /24

On 7 Oct 2015, at 9:29, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t get an IPv4 address?” At the present time, a web

Re: Inexpensive probes for automated bandwidth testing purposes

They introduced themselves via SPAM recently… They’ve been plonked as a result. Owen > On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Brandon Ross wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > >> I am running a DOCSIS network that has a noisy cable plant. I want to be >> able to

Re: Android and DHCPv6 again

El 10/7/2015 a las 12:50 AM, Enno Rey escribió: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:59:14PM -0430, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >> Hello, >> This is a question a should test myself but anyhow I would like to >> hear your comments. >> What happen (on the client side/Android maybe) if I advertise

Re: /27 the new /24

Memory footprint is still an issue in lots of things like ESP8266 (which doesn’t yet support IPv6, but hopefully will soon). Not everything is a cell phone or larger. There are lots of cool new things coming out in the SoC world where you’ve got a micro controller, GPIOs, CAN, SPI, WiFi, and

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that > help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t get an IPv4 address?” > > Owen > At the present time, a web site that doesn't have

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > >> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> >> >> Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that >> help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t

Re: /27 the new /24

This is excellent feedback, thank you. On 10/07/2015 04:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: My bookshelf is full of books describing IPv4. Saying "IPv6 just works" ignores the issues of configuring intelligent firewalls to block

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/07/2015 06:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t get an IPv4 address?” At the present time, a web

Re: /27 the new /24

On Wednesday, 7 October, 2015 12:54, "Owen DeLong" said: > There are some important differences for ICMP (don’t break PMTU-D or ND), > but otherwise, really not much difference between your IPv4 security policy > and > your IPv6 security policy. The IPv4 world would have been

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message , Matthew Kaufman > w > rites: >> >> >>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> Instead, the followup

Re: Question re session hijacking in dual stack environments w/MacOS

On 2/Oct/15 07:46, Doug McIntyre wrote: > I suspect this is OSX implementing IPv6 Privacy Extensions. Where OSX > generates a new random IPv6 address, applies it to the interface, and then > drops the old IPv6 addresses as they stale out. Sessions in use or not. > > sudo sysctl -w

Fwd: [arin-announce] Combined Registration Services Agreement Released

Folks - Apologies for the distraction, but the revised RSA/LRSA is out, and it addresses some of the concerns raised in this community. See attached announcement for details. /John Begin forwarded message: From: ARIN > Date: October 7, 2015 at 11:31:49

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

>Using the link-level address to distinguish between good and bad email >content was always daunting at best. Thanks for pointing out that this >flawed behaviour must cease. I don't know anyone who does that. But I know a lot of people who use both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to distinguish among