Re: Historic/Retired Routing Registry

On 3/23/22 11:47 PM, Brian R wrote: > Have you tried sending an email to Merit Network? > r...@merit.edu > https://www.irr.net/docs/list.html > It seems like the kind of thing they might have legacy info on. > > I did a little bit of searching and didn't come up with

Re: Historic/Retired Routing Registry

Dan, Have you tried sending an email to Merit Network? r...@merit.edu https://www.irr.net/docs/list.html It seems like the kind of thing they might have legacy info on. I did a little bit of searching and didn't come up with anything about retired IRRs either. Brian

Historic/Retired Routing Registry

Hey there all, I have vague memories of some group running a routing registry that was shut down in the late 90s/early 2000s and I could’ve sworn it was ARIN. It might’ve been Internic or something like that as well. Does anyone have any recollection of this? My Google searching for

Re: V6 still not supported

John Curran wrote: About two decades later, at the time of the IPv4 central free pool runout (Feb 2011), we had neither “clearly improved functionality” nor a straightforward transition plan for "transparent access between the IPv4 and IPng communities” – I do hope I was wrong about the

Re: V6 still not supported

On 23 Mar 2022, at 3:06 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: >>However, recognize that IPv6 deployment continues to grow, and >>that means there could easily be a “tipping point” sometime in >>your future – i.e. a point in time when your organization needs to >>support IPv6 because of internal

Re: Bufferbloat and the pandemic was: V6 still not supported

On 3/23/22 1:08 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Michael Thomas said: anything that ISP can do if they don't supply the ÇPE? What percentage of providers do supply the CPE in the form of cable and dsl modems, etc, that they could solve the problem with a swap out? In the US at least,

Re: V6 still not supported

james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon > wrote: ... Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative effects, the fact that it did not

Reason for delayed tornado warnings in Iowa

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/03/06/nws-tornado-warning-dissemination-iowa/ In a follow-up statement Monday, Buchanan said the communications delay resulted from a damaged fiber optic cable at the Weather Service’s Dallas-Fort Worth office. “The cable outage caused that

Re: Bufferbloat and the pandemic was: V6 still not supported

It appears that Michael Thomas said: >anything that ISP can do if they don't supply the ÇPE? What percentage >of providers do supply the CPE in the form of cable and dsl modems, etc, >that they could solve the problem with a swap out? In the US at least, although cable customers can use their

Re: V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/23/22 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Michael Thomas wrote: IETF can't force people to adopt things, film at 11. They certainly can't control people's saltiness from something that happened 30 years ago. IPv6 is manifestly deployable for operators that want to. If

Bufferbloat and the pandemic was: V6 still not supported

On 3/23/22 12:21 PM, james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: I suggest that it may be more important to deploy solutions to BufferBloat, to the benefit of both IPv4 and IPv6 since it will improve the user experience, than to try to extend IPv4 lifetime, an effort with diminishing returns.

Re: V6 still not supported

> On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon > wrote: > ... > Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage > visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative > effects, the fact that it did not and that globally v4 address

Re: V6 still not supported

John Curran wrote: On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon > wrote: ... Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative effects, the fact that it did not and that

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/23/22 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Michael Thomas wrote: SIP won't displace all legacy PSTN any time soon. So it's a failure by your definition. And by your definition IPv6 was a failure before it was even born because the internet became popular -- something I'll add that nobody

Re: V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas wrote: SIP won't displace all legacy PSTN any time soon. So it's a failure by your definition. And by your definition IPv6 was a failure before it was even born because the internet became popular -- something I'll add that nobody knew for certain when it was being

BCP 235

Pardon the netop relevant interjection... Most of you probably don't need this, but in my experience many did. DNS over TCP transport is a thing, please don't block it. kthxbye. John

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/23/22 10:04 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/22/22 10:34 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: There is this other side: I'm dualstack, and I simply dont notice. Being in transition state indefinitely is not success. The other side is when you are v6 only and you dont notice.

Re: V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/22/22 10:34 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: There is this other side: I'm dualstack, and I simply dont notice. Being in transition state indefinitely is not success. The other side is when you are v6 only and you dont notice. We arent there yet. Thats the failure.

Re: V6 still not supported

> On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > ... > Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage > visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative > effects, the fact that it did not and that globally v4 address shortage is > still a

RE: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC

Dear Abe: Neat  Did you propose this work at a WG in Vienna this week? Just a few points: * I coined the term elevator shaft for the description below. I just thought that it may help visualize this story; figuring the Internet as a 2-D flat in a building, and the special prefix bring a 3rd

Re: V6 still not supported

On 3/22/22 10:34 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: There is this other side: I'm dualstack, and I simply dont notice. Being in transition state indefinitely is not success. The other side is when you are v6 only and you dont notice. We arent there yet. Thats the failure. This is a terrible way to

Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC

Dear Pascal: 0)    So glad to see your recount of the history and the analysis! 1)    We have recently formulated a proposal called EzIP (Phonetic for Easy IPv4) that is very much along the line of what you just described below, but with a few twists. I browsed through US patent 7,356,031,

Re: Telus contact re: VPN services (ESP, SSL) impacted, Vancouver -> Las Vegas

This appears to have corrected some time today and users are no longer experiencing these symptoms. If no one at Telus touched anything, then please ignore. If someone spotted this and tweaked something, thanks, though I would appreciate info on what was updated. Hugo Slabbert Network Engineer

RE: V6 still not supported

I see the same thing from the other side, being a S/W developer for switching and routing boxes since the early 90's. The PM barrier is a high wall indeed. And yet some techs succeed to pass it. What I'm arguing is that we can pass that wall if we work together with the same objective. I've

Re: IPv6 "bloat" history

William Allen Simpson wrote:  6) The Paul Francis (the originator of NAT) Polymorphic Internet Protocol     (PIP) had some overlapping features, so we also asked them to merge     with us (July 1993).  More complexity in the protocol header chaining. With the merger, Paul Francis was