Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:39:50 -0700, Owen DeLong via NANOG said: > The reality is that if we get content dual-stacked and stop requiring IPv4 > for new eyeball installations, that’s the biggest initial win. The problem is "get content dual-stacked". Somebody made this handy page of the IPv6 sta

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

It appears that Bill Woodcock said: >> The next thought was SMTP > >I assume someone’s tried using MX record precedence to do this? record >references with lower values than A record references, >and see what happens? Anyone have any results to share there? I used to publish two MX record

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 11:57 , Niels Bakker wrote: > > * Owen DeLong via NANOG [Wed 08 Sep 2021, 20:35 CEST]: >> IPv4 continues to increase in cost. Surely, there is a point where >> organizations start to cry uncle. > > In most western countries there isn't much growth in the total number of

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

* Owen DeLong via NANOG [Wed 08 Sep 2021, 20:35 CEST]: IPv4 continues to increase in cost. Surely, there is a point where organizations start to cry uncle. In most western countries there isn't much growth in the total number of connections. It's mostly churn between providers. IPv4 addresses

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> But you don't have to look far before you hit snags like this: > https://www.norid.no/en/om-domenenavn/regelverk-for-no/vedlegg-f/ I just sent the following to them: I’m writing about your name server requirements page: https://www.norid.no/en/om-domenenavn/regelverk-for-no/vedlegg-f/ I thin

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 00:49 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 9/8/21 09:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote: > >> Membership fees can be painful, that's for sure. >> They do have positive aspects, though :) > > I encourage other operators (especially the "major" ones - but really, > everyone)

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 7, 2021, at 23:50 , Saku Ytti wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:51, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Hopefully this idea that “you need to do IPv4 anyhow” will die some day soon. > > Fully agreed, I just don't see the driver. But I can imagine a $$ IPv4 continues to increase in cos

Re: if not v6, what?

> On Sep 7, 2021, at 19:51 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Niels Bakker wrote: > >>> As for well known port, we can specify non-default port numbers >>> in URLs (I'm not sure whether it works for mailto: or not) or. >>> in the future, things like DNS SRV RRs should be helpful. >> This absolutel

Spoofer Report for NANOG for Aug 2021

In response to feedback from operational security communities, CAIDA's source address validation measurement project (https://spoofer.caida.org) is automatically generating monthly reports of ASes originating prefixes in BGP for systems from which we received packets with a spoofed source address.

Re: if not v6, what?

Mark Andrews wrote: I know SRV and other similar proposals so far are not very compatible with URL syntax and should better be simplified. The only thing difficult to map was non-default ports and that could easily have been addressed. That's why simplification is desired. See below. Remem

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/8/21 10:49, Brandon Butterworth wrote: This was discussed as a follow up to World IPv6 day. We'd be 10 years closer by now if we had done it then. The sooner we start the sooner we can finish, I was in favour of it then and remain so. End of. Mark.

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 10:24 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > The next thought was SMTP I assume someone’s tried using MX record precedence to do this? record references with lower values than A record references, and see what happens? Anyone have any results to share there? > and authoritative

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On Wed Sep 08, 2021 at 09:49:15AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > On 9/8/21 09:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote: > > I encourage other operators (especially the "major" ones - but really, > > everyone) to seriously consider supporting this idea, and begin to > > circulate, within your organizations

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:24, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Signing such a contract would be pretty stupid from a commercial pov. > The growth isn't exponential anymore. It's linear at best. You can > probably run just fine with an IPv4 only network after 2040. Not so > sure about the IPv6 only network.

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

Saku Ytti writes: > On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:51, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Hopefully this idea that “you need to do IPv4 anyhow” will die some day soon. > > Fully agreed, I just don't see the driver. But I can imagine a > different timeline where in 2000 several tier1 signed mutual binding > cont

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/8/21 09:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote: Membership fees can be painful, that's for sure. They do have positive aspects, though :) I encourage other operators (especially the "major" ones - but really, everyone) to seriously consider supporting this idea, and begin to circulate,

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> > Without the membership fees, of course :-). Membership fees can be painful, that's for sure. They do have positive aspects, though :) Cheers, Etienne On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:38 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 9/8/21 09:35, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote: > > > If the Telecom Infra Projec

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/8/21 09:35, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote: If the Telecom Infra Project is a good indicator of what operators can achieve by uniting, then you're on a good trajectory. Without the membership fees, of course :-). Mark.

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/8/21 09:30, Saku Ytti wrote: I have no idea, I'll ask our VP if we'd entertain such a contract and if so what type of terms. That would be great! Consider our side in full support, already, as I usually have positive outcomes with my management on these sorts of things. SEACOM would

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> > I'm not sure if there needs to be a separate "cabal" amongst the major > network operators that cover every corner of the world to agree to this, > as I expect more talking here on NANOG than action around this issue. > But I'd be happy to join and support such a cabal, with the backing of > my

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 10:25, Mark Tinka wrote: > Do we drive this through the IETF, or just have private, multi-lateral > agreements, as major operators? I have no idea, I'll ask our VP if we'd entertain such a contract and if so what type of terms. I imagine some website documenting who has u

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/8/21 08:50, Saku Ytti wrote: Fully agreed, I just don't see the driver. But I can imagine a different timeline where in 2000 several tier1 signed mutual binding contracts to drop IPv4 at the edge in 2020. And no one opposed, because 20 years before was 1980, and 20 years in the future IP