Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/13/21 2:52 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:22 PM Randy Bush > wrote: real compatibility with ipv4 was disdained.  the transition plan was dual stack and v4 would go away in a handful of years.  the 93 transition mechanisms were

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

Baldur Norddahl wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:22 PM Randy Bush > wrote: real compatibility with ipv4 was disdained. the transition plan was dual stack and v4 would go away in a handful of years. the 93 transition mechanisms were desperate add-ons

RE: IPv6 woes - RFC

In resource challenged regions we have been using IPv4+CGN+IPv6 dual stack for the last ten or so years. For 20K subs you can use one /24 of ipv4 and a /40 or so of ipv6. There have been available RGW’s and sufficient vendor support throughout this time. The only issues I have ever really seen

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/13/21 11:22 AM, Randy Bush wrote: < rant > ipv6 was designed at a time where the internet futurists/idealists had disdain for operators and vendors, and thought we were evil money grabbers who had to be brought under control. the specs as originally RFCed by the ietf is very telling.

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

On 9/13/21, 12:02, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > Yes, but it’s tragically opt-out instead of opt-in as it should be. It is not a default for an Internet access service. It comes bundled as one of several features in an optional add on service. See

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:22 PM Randy Bush wrote: > real compatibility with ipv4 was disdained. the transition plan was > dual stack and v4 would go away in a handful of years. the 93 > transition mechanisms were desperate add-ons when v4 did not go away. > and dual stack does not scale, as it

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> it's easy to be critical of design decisions with 25y of hindsight there was a good number of senior implementors and ops who screamed loudly at the time. to no avail. randy

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

Randy Bush wrote on 13/09/2021 19:22: the specs as originally RFCed by the ietf is very telling. for your amusement, take a look at rfc 2450. it took five years of war to get rid of the tla/sla crap. and look at the /64 religion today[0]. architectural decisions were made because of a

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

< rant > ipv6 was designed at a time where the internet futurists/idealists had disdain for operators and vendors, and thought we were evil money grabbers who had to be brought under control. the specs as originally RFCed by the ietf is very telling. for your amusement, take a look at rfc 2450.

Re: Amazon Prime Video contact

Amazon does have a process to investigate these issues and unfortunately the information on the Brothers WISP page is dated (that page took over the nanog.cluepon.net data which was referenced in previous NANOG presentations). I strongly recommend that any ISP who has blocked IPs or customers

Re: Amazon Prime Video contact

Geoguard takes care of Amazon, they were pretty responsive for me. n...@geoguard.com Elijah Zeida Network Administrator AirBridge Broadband 208-494-4343x1001 https://airbridgebroadband.com/ On 9/13/2021 7:41 AM, David Brain wrote: Hi, Is there a contact for Amazon Prime Video - we are seeing

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

> On Sep 13, 2021, at 07:56 , Livingood, Jason via NANOG > wrote: > > On 9/10/21, 10:58, "NANOG on behalf of Chris Boyd" > cb...@gizmopartners.com> wrote: > >> Why is Comcast blocking things? That seems like it’s out of scope for an ISP. > > For Internet access, sure. But ISPs also have

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 13, 2021, at 05:17 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 9/13/21 01:00, Michael Thomas wrote: > >> >> If vendors actually cared they could make the CGNAT's and other hacks >> ridiculously buggy and really expensive to deploy and maintain. I doubt many >> vendors were chomping at the

Amazon Prime Video contact

Hi, Is there a contact for Amazon Prime Video - we are seeing a block of IPs that are used for a content filtering solution being flagged as proxies (which they are, but not in that way...) - which is impacting a number of our customers. Thanks. David. -- David Brain - MCNC - 919.248.1998

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

As Alex said, you can submit a request to review a block at https://spa.xfinity.com. Note that this service relies substantially on 3rd party list sources

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

On 9/10/21, 10:58, "NANOG on behalf of Chris Boyd" wrote: > Why is Comcast blocking things? That seems like it’s out of scope for an ISP. For Internet access, sure. But ISPs also have value added protection services and this part of an optional content filtering service that is integrated

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/13/21 02:16, Michael Thomas wrote: But it's hardly uniform across the industry. This is a classic reverse-tragedy of the commons. The problem is it's uniform in the corners that contain scale and the money to make a difference at vendor-land. 7 million mom & pop ISP's vs. 10

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/13/21 01:00, Michael Thomas wrote: If vendors actually cared they could make the CGNAT's and other hacks ridiculously buggy and really expensive to deploy and maintain. I doubt many vendors were chomping at the bit to support CGNAT and are probably wondering what fresh hell is next

RE: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

https://spa.xfinity.com should have a form to request removal. Note they say resolution time can be up to three business days -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast From: NANOG On Behalf Of Jason Kuehl Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 10:31 AM To: NANOG

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

We ran into this same issue for the first time yesterday too. Xfi Advanced Security started blocking our websockets endpoint, websocket.carsandbids.com/carsandbids. Our logs just showed a couple users failing to make the connection. We never would have figured it out except that one of our