> It seems like NAT would be another way to make IPv4 more painful to
> use.
it is. but, judging by people's actions, in many cases it seems less
painful than going to ipv6. off-pissing, but reality.
randy
Publicly shame them by listing the ones who don't fully support IPv6. List
them here, so we know to choose their competition.
On Dec 16, 2015 8:39 PM, "Berry Mobley" wrote:
> At 08:22 PM 12/16/2015, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> > We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
>>
>> this is t
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 8:37 PM, Mike wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>Im trying to establish connectivity with comcast and their normal sales
> channel doesn't seem to be equipped to deal with a facilities based carrier
> who wishes to establish some kind of meet-me arrangement on fiber. Does
> anyone k
At 08:22 PM 12/16/2015, Randy Bush wrote:
> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.
This. I'm in an enterp
At 08:22 PM 12/16/2015, Randy Bush wrote:
> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.
This. I'm in an enterp
>
> We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and
> SYN/ACK would
> be one way to achieve this. Start at 100ms..200ms and increase it by
> 100ms each year.
It seems like NAT would be another way to make IPv4 more painful to use.
On 12/16/2015 04:14 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
I don't like what you eat. Lets put a surcharge on it to make you feel pain and
do what I want.:)
"I don't like what you eat. Lets put a TAX on it to make you feel pain
and do what I want."
There. Fixed it for you.
On 12/16/2015 19:22, Randy Bush wrote:
We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.
what keeps the cows in the
Hi,
Im trying to establish connectivity with comcast and their normal
sales channel doesn't seem to be equipped to deal with a facilities
based carrier who wishes to establish some kind of meet-me arrangement
on fiber. Does anyone know or can a comcast carrer sales rep contact me?
I want
> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. load of
crap.
make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
previous sentence 42 times.
what keeps the cows in the pasture is the quality of the grass not
While we will get us there eventually it will be at the considerably more
expensive
for everyone involved. There is also a distinct lack of a working free market
in most
of the world. There isn't one in Australia. From what I read there isn't one
in most
of the developed nations in the world
On 12/16/2015 18:14, Mel Beckman wrote:
Mark,
Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market
will get us all there eventually.
I don't like what you eat. Lets put a surcharge on it to make you
feel pain and do what I want. :)
That's what I'm talking about.
But this IS
On 12/16/2015 17:28, Mark Andrews wrote:
+100
Nobody should have to be doing NAT today.
We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and
SYN/ACK would be one way to achieve this. Start at 100ms..200ms and
increase it by 100ms each year.
If it is such a good idea, why
Mark,
Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market will get
us all there eventually.
I don't like what you eat. Lets put a surcharge on it to make you feel pain and
do what I want. :)
-mel beckman
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> This doesn't
This doesn't put pain on those that have enough addresses that they don't need
to NAT yet. We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
Mark
On 17/12/2015, at 10:39 AM, Charles Monson wrote:
> We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and SYN/ACK
> would
> b
hi folkx
On 12/17/15 at 10:28am, Mark Andrews wrote:
> We need to make IPv4 painful to use.
already is too crowded
> Adding delay between SYN and SYN/ACK would be one way to achieve this.
change tcp windoow size to 1 byte per packet or decrease from 1500 byte
packets, more traffic they use,
+100
Nobody should have to be doing NAT today.
We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and SYN/ACK
would
be one way to achieve this. Start at 100ms..200ms and increase it by 100ms
each year.
Mark
On 17/12/2015, at 9:38 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
wrote:
> IPv4 NAT!?
If it were only so easy...
On Dec 16, 2015 4:41 PM, "Livingood, Jason" <
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> IPv4 NAT!? Free yourself from the tyranny of shared addresses. ;-)
>
> http://www.comcast6.net/images/files/revolt.jpg
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> On 12/15/15, 1:08 PM, "NANOG on behalf of
Anyone know what the IPV6 availability is on Cable One or Charter networks?
Last I heard from Charter was that they were in beta. Its been in that
state for years.
I can't find anything on Cable One
IPv4 NAT!? Free yourself from the tyranny of shared addresses. ;-)
http://www.comcast6.net/images/files/revolt.jpg
Jason
On 12/15/15, 1:08 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Ahmed Munaf"
wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>We are using cisco for natting, we'd like to change it to another brand
>like A10 or Citrix.
We have the ASR1006 ESP40's handling 25,000+home broadband users running NAT
and barely breaking a sweat. What ESP are you using ?
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ahmed Munaf
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 5:36 AM
To: Mark Tinka
Cc: nanog@na
On 15/12/15 10:08, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> We are using cisco for natting, we'd like to change it to another brand like
> A10 or Citrix.
If you are willing to rephrase it to "we are using Cisco IOS for
NATting, we'd like to change it to another platform or brand", you may
want to tak
The 24th DNS-OARC Workshop will take place in Buenos Aires, Argentina between
March 31st and April 1st 2016, Thursday and Friday before IETF95. This will be
the first time DNS-OARC is held in the Southern Hemisphere. To attract the best
DNS minds and local audience, DNS-OARC is requesting propo
On 16/Dec/15 18:36, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> In addition to the limited concurrent sessions for ASR1000, we are
> facing some issue with many users how are playing online games! Nat
> problems!
This could be a function of the size of your ESP.
The 5Gbps ESP can handle 256,000 NAT sessions, while t
In addition to the limited concurrent sessions for ASR1000, we are facing some
issue with many users how are playing online games! Nat problems!
Ahmed,
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16/Dec/15 12:45, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
>
>> Yes, we are using ASR1004 for NAT, w
On 16/Dec/15 12:45, Ahmed Munaf wrote:
> Yes, we are using ASR1004 for NAT, we are considering A10 or Citrix or F5.
> we’ve not decided till now!
> maybe we change it to another product, if anyone give us a better solution.
>
> this will be used for ISP’s users.
The ASR1000 is not a bad la
If LLDP (link layer discovery protocol) is enabled, you could try using
that. There is a system capabilities TLV in the LLDPDU sent by a system,
but I'm not sure how reliably it is filled in, especially if a device is
capable of both switching and routing. The way LLDP is supposed to work is
a de
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Dave Taht
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 4:37 AM
To: William Herrin
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: reliably detecting the presence of a bridge?
The latter.
In this case a routing optimization that works well on wi
[Dave asked me to repost this to the list -- not sure how useful this
little lead is; haven't worked on this for more than half a decade.]
I don't have a good platform to test this on today, but one way to
detect a wireless bridge a couple of years ago was to send a SNAP packet
(actually anything
Yes, we are using ASR1004 for NAT, we are considering A10 or Citrix or F5.
we’ve not decided till now!
maybe we change it to another product, if anyone give us a better solution.
this will be used for ISP’s users.
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Hunter Fuller wrote:
>
> You are using a Cisc
Dave Taht wrote:
> To be more clear I wanted to detect if there was more than one
> bridge on the network, where the bridge being a PITA was a wired/wireless
> bridge.
Listen to spanning tree protocol.
Masataka Ohta
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
I am curious if there is some sort of igmp or other form of message
that would reliably detect if a switch had a bridge on it. How could
deviceA detect deviceC was a bridge in this case?
deviceA -> ethernet switch -> deviceB
ethernet swi
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:19 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
>> I am curious if there is some sort of igmp or other form of message
>> that would reliably detect if a switch had a bridge on it. How could
>> deviceA detect deviceC was a bridge in this
33 matches
Mail list logo
