On 12/19/2015 17:15, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 12/19/2015 16:53, James R Cutler wrote:
[snip]
But I still have one question (which might be based on errors)--
I think I have used WiFi terminals ("air ports", "WiFi routers"
[spit]) that offer a "bridge" mode, apparently to build a dedicated
radi
On 12/19/2015 16:53, James R Cutler wrote:
[snip]
But I still have one question (which might be based on errors)--
I think I have used WiFi terminals ("air ports", "WiFi routers"
[spit]) that offer a "bridge" mode, apparently to build a dedicated
radio link between two such terminals.
Are the
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 4:53 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> On 12/19/2015 12:17, William Herrin wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I recommend you stop using the word "bridge." I think see where you're
>> heading with it, but I think you're chasing a blind alley which
>> encourages a false mental model of how
>I think I have used WiFi terminals ("air ports", "WiFi routers" [spit])
>that offer a "bridge" mode, apparently to build a dedicated radio link
>between two such terminals.
The ones I've seen
Normally those things are routers, typically with NAT on the wifi
side. If you put it in bridge mode
Hi Matthew,
> I have multiple sets of clients on a particular subnet; the subnet
> is somewhat geographically distributed; I have multiple routers
> on the subnet. I currently am able to explicitly associate clients
> with the most appropriate router for them in v4.
> How can I do this using only
On 12/19/2015 12:17, William Herrin wrote:
[snip]
I recommend you stop using the word "bridge." I think see where you're
heading with it, but I think you're chasing a blind alley which
encourages a false mental model of how layer 2 networks function. You
came here for answers. This is one of th
On 19 December 2015 at 15:49, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> It's far past time to worry about architectural purity. We need people
> deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this
> point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to deploy.
>
If you want to deploy IPv6 NO
James R Cutler wrote:
> All that is necessary is for us to end the years of religious debate
> of DHCP vs RA and to start providing solutions that meet business
> management needs.
Heresy! Burn him!
Nick
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/Dec/15 19:44, joel jaeggli wrote:
> > > in general people who want to serve bits to your customers are
going to > be a little less coy about where there assets are. in
particular the CDN > bits are interested in peering nearer to your
regio
This is OT of NAT, but follows the existing discussion.
Since discussion has warped around to host configuration DHCP (again), it might
be useful to review discussions dating from 2011:
The stupidity of trying to "fix” DHCPv6
and
The Business Wisdom of trying to "fix” DHCPv6
which also refer to
Hi Nick,
> Unfortunately, this turned into a religious war a long time ago and the
> primary consideration with regard to dhcpv6 has not been what's best for
> ipv6 or ipv6 users or ipv6 operators, but ensuring that dhcpv6 is
> sufficiently crippled as a protocol that it cannot be deployed without
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:19 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> From what you've posted, you don't want to detect the difference
>> between a switch and a bridge, you want to detect the difference
>
> To be more clear I wanted to detect if there was
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
>> It's far past time to worry about architectural purity. We need people
>> deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this
>> point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to deploy.
>
> I partia
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
>
>>I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
>>to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
>>when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not
>>allowing the DHCP server to assign a
Although I realize it's a practical matter I find it fairly amazing
that IPv4 blocks will be stigmatized as spam infected and hence
worthless or nearly so.
Talk about giving in to "terrorists" (I use that word
metaphorically.)
Something to note next time someone asks me what the actual financial
On 12/19/15 8:16 AM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> I don’t think anyone really would tell where their critical network assets
> are but obviously you can guesstimate by looking where they have connection
> points available.
in general people who want to serve bits to your customers are going to
be a lit
In the end, there seems to be no "reliable" way to ask the network my question.
But... WOW! Thank you all for your interesting and clever techniques!
Hi,
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> "A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that
> myth into the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are
> clueless."
>
>
>
> OOL
>
>
> A 100 gallon fuel tank is fine for most forms of tran
Hello,
I believe Microsoft does that too, even if it's not explicitly written :
http://www.microsoft.com/Peering/Caching
Best regards.
> Le 19 déc. 2015 à 17:13, Patrick W. Gilmore a écrit :
>
> PeeringDB will tell you where they connect. I do not think anyone puts stuff
> into PeeringDB w
"A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that
myth into the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are
clueless."
OOL
A 100 gallon fuel tank is fine for most forms of transportation most people
think of. For some reason we built IPv6 like a fighter je
I think we both agree there is no perfect publication of where their servers
actually are
Given Ahmed is asking "Does anyone know if AWS amazon “cloudfront”, cloud
flare, Microsoft … etc, hosting their servers on other party providers?”
i think the answer you given which is
>>>
>>> In genera
I do not follow the logic.
If a CDN says they have a gigantic peering node in DC, how does that tell you
where they put on-net servers?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to put servers on-net in OKC or SLC because they do
_NOT_ have large peering nodes there? Locality is important. Akamai has
thousa
I'm preparing some slides on this topic for an upcoming webinar our marketing
team has roped me into :-)
I'd love to hear from people on what they perceive and the real barriers they
have seen with regards to IPv6 in your environment.
I certainly have the list from our IT department. After muc
Sander Steffann wrote:
> So yes, people have to deploy IPv6 as soon as possible, but it's not
> the job of the IETF to fix all of the obstacles.
What we need is for the IETF to stop being an obstacle.
More to the point, as the IETF's opinion is based on the consensus of
its working groups, it wou
I don’t think anyone really would tell where their critical network assets are
but obviously you can guesstimate by looking where they have connection points
available.
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> PeeringDB will tell you where they connect. I do not think anyon
PeeringDB will tell you where they connect. I do not think anyone puts stuff
into PeeringDB when they have on-net nodes.
In general, only the big three (Akamai, Netflix, Google) have significant
deployments inside eyeball networks. Exceptions to every rule and all that, but
if you pick random l
looking at peeringdb -- http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=16509 might
give you an idea where they are.
mehmet
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Ahmed Munaf
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Does anyone know if AWS amazon “cloudfront”, cloud flare, Microsoft … etc,
> hosting their servers on other party
Hi Jeff,
> It's far past time to worry about architectural purity. We need people
> deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this
> point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to deploy.
I partially agree with you. If people have learned how IPv6 works, deploye
Dear All,
Does anyone know if AWS amazon “cloudfront”, cloud flare, Microsoft … etc,
hosting their servers on other party providers?
just like what GGC and Akamai do by hosting their servers on other ISP’s
datacenter!
Regards,
Congratulations, Sander, on proving Matthew's point quite consicely.
Matthew pointed out reasons that people don't like this setup, and reasons
that they *AREN'T DEPLOYING IPV6*. And you blow them off with, "but it's
not the best way." Great, I think I probably even agree with you that
using the
Hi Matthew,
> The mix of having to do this crazy thing of gateway announcements
> from one place, DNS from somewhere else, possibly auto-assigning
> addresses from a router, but maybe getting them over DHCPv6. It's
> just confusing and unnecessary and IMHO isn't helpful for
> persuading people to
31 matches
Mail list logo
